Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London Regional Transport

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the performance of his industry.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): I meet the chairman of London Regional Transport at regular intervals to discuss various aspects of the performance of his industry. He is to be congratulated on cutting costs, reducing revenue support and attracting record numbers of passengers to use LRT services.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The many improvements are attracting passengers, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done to reduce the consequent overcrowding? Will he have a word with the chairman about the modernisation of the Central line, and particularly the signals, especially as only this morning many of my constituents were appallingly delayed and suffered great inconvenience?

Mr. Moore: I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of the chairman, Keith Bright. My hon. Friend is right, in that as a result of LRT's success overcrowding means that the frequency of trains on four lines has had to be improved in 1986. I was pleased to be able to approve last month a major new investment programme, involving £45 million of investment in new trains for delivery in 1987–88.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shambles that his transport policy is causing on the No. 24 bus, which is supposed to bring me to the House of Commons from Hampstead? Is the principle that he applies that it does not matter what happens to the passengers as long as a few more people are thrown out of jobs?

Mr. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, written to me on that subject. I do not accept his criticism, and should like to remind him of two facts. He keeps drawing my attention to the operation of buses by one person. That is a matter for LRT, but it should be remembered that staff on crewed buses are three times more likely to be assaulted than those on one-person buses. The right hon. Gentleman is a fair man, and he should remember that.

Mr. Adley: Are there not lessons to be drawn by both sides of the House following the success of LRT? The lesson for the Labour party is that politically motivated people who try to run transport services do not do a very good job. The lesson for us is that the nationalisation of London Transport, by this Government, did not necessarily have undesirable results.

Mr. Moore: The lesson to be drawn is that excellent management which has clear objectives and a clear set of disciplines can attract increased custom, and can lead to greater efficiency, a reduction in unit costs and an overall improvement for the passenger.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of my constituents are once again complaining of being kept waiting for a long time at bus stops for buses that never come? On investigation, the reason is usually that LRT simply did not have a driver available to operate the service. When he next meets the chairman, will the Secretary of State point out to him that we all want a lean and hungry service, but not one that is so emaciated that it cannot deliver a service to the customers?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has written to me, and we may later reach his question on the Order Paper concerning the quality of services. I shall talk to the chairman about the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure he will remember that many of the difficulties concern crewed buses rather than those manned by one operator. The problem of staff failing to arrive for those buses creates considerable difficulties and cancellations.

Mr. Waller: Is it not significant that all the Greater London council's forecasts at the time when my right hon. Friend's Department took over transport responsibilities have been proved to be completely untrue? Is it not the fact that by running the business on proper businesslike lines it has been possible to attract more passengers, to provide a much better service for them and to put more investment into London Regional Transport?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There has been a major increase in patronage—by 4 per cent. in 1985–86 compared with 1984–85. He is right to remind the House of the scaremongering of the erstwhile GLC. That body said that 33 tube stations and branch lines would be closed, but none has.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There appears to be a great difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and those who use the service. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should conduct a proper investigation into the matter. It he aware of the engineering dispute that is taking place within London Buses Ltd., which is having a greater impact each day on the travelling public? Is he taking active steps to try to get the dispute resolved?

Mr. Moore: I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of what the London Region Passengers Committee, the consumer watchdog, said. The following passage appeared in the 1985–86 annual report:
The year…may go down in history as having seen the reversal of the long spiral of decline in London's public transport.
Surely that is a clear sign.
I recognise that the level of service of London Buses Ltd. has been hit badly over the past week or so, but I understand that the craftsmen, the engineers, who have been working to rule have today returned to normal


working. I hope that services will rapidly improve. On behalf of London Regional Transport, I apologise to passengers for the disruption that the work-to-rule action has caused.

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Moore: I met the chairman of London Regional Transport last Tuesday at a meeting of the London passenger transport group, where a number of LRT and BR issues were discussed.

Mr. Banks: Did the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of London Regional Transport the crisis in LRT Builders? He will no doubt be aware that there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in personnel there through voluntary redundancies and a great increase in productivity, yet the organisation is still heading for a loss. The feeling of the work force is that it has been let down badly by management. For example, five contracts worth £2·7 million were won by LRT Builders in open competition, which the LRT board gave back. The staff would like the Government to call for an inquiry into the management of LRT Builders. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking that course?

Mr. Moore: That is not one of the subjects that was discussed. This is a matter for LRT management, but to put the matter into perspective I draw attention to the fact that this is a fringe business with a turnover of £15 million with losses that are running at between £5 million and £6 million. Following an internal audit, it was recognised that a number of recent tenders would have recovered only 60 per cent. of costs. As for the hon. Gentleman's specific request, I see little justification for diverting public subsidy from its proper purpose of supporting the transport operation to funding losses in fringe activities.

Mr. Higgins: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the appalling delays that are caused to buses by the completely unnecessary construction of barriers to traffic, of which the worst examples are to be found at Aldwych and at the south end of Westminster bridge? In addition, there is the proliferation of traffic lights, which seems to be taking place at a tremendous rate. Will my right hon. Friend discuss these matters and take corrective steps?

Mr. Moore: I shall, of course, because my right hon. Friend has in the past drawn my attention to the last product of the GLC.

Mr. Spearing: Irrespective of what the Secretary of State has just said, does he agree that the majority of passengers in London want crew-operated buses in central London? As for the engineering dispute, is it not a fact that management was trying to be too clever by half and was requiring conditions that would be prejudicial to the success of the bus service, and that the men on the job knew it?

Mr. Moore: In considering the operations of London Buses Ltd., we must take into account the advice that was given by those who seek to manage the bus services on our behalf. I shall not add to what I said earlier. A few engineers have been involved in a dispute in conflict with the settlement that was arrived at by the majority of LRT employees. The dispute has inconvenienced passengers, and I apologise for that on behalf of LRT.

Mr. Squire: I reassure my right hon. Friend. His earlier statements have already made it clear that the threats and fears expressed by Opposition Members have not been proved true in the performance of London Regional Transport. I ask my right hon. Friend when he meets the chairman of LRT, to bear in mind a matter which is causing concern—the recruitment of workers within LRT bus operations. A number of services seem to be suffering from a failure to run to timetables. This causes considerable aggravation and annoyance to my constituents.

Mr. Moore: I shall draw my hon. Friend's last point to the attention of London Regional Transport. I have to reiterate that, as my hon. Friend said, we are talking about a transport undertaking that has seen a significant growth in the number of passengers. It is a great success, despite the scaremongering from the erstwhile GLC.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that there seems to be a gross shortage of staff on the London Underground? Announcements on the Northern line say, "Sorry, there are far fewer trains today due to shortage of staff." At a time of high unemployment, why is this so? Can the right hon. Gentleman also get the computer indicators to work properly, without management always apologising from central control at Euston?

Mr. Moore: I shall be delighted to make sure that those points are brought to the attention of London Regional Transport. It is interesting, in regard to some of the comments that we hear—I am sure the hon. Member, with his interest in transport will know this—that approximately 75 per cent. of total London Regional Transport costs are staff costs. They are a critical factor in the success of London Transport.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and extol the virtues of London Regional Transport management and then, in his next answer, admit that it apparently won contracts on the open market, which, on checking, show that it recovered only 60 per cent. of its costs? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that that is good management? How can we possibly have confidence in the other figures?

Mr. Moore: I obviously did not make myself clear. The contracts in question, which LRT did not seek to secure, were those which followed an internal audit and showed that LRT was recovering only 60 per cent. of its costs. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked why it did not proceed with those contracts. I was stating the advice that I had been given by London Transport as to the way in which the contracts in question had not covered its costs. In so far as they had not, they were not pursued.

Drinking and Driving

Mr. William Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to increase public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The latest step in our continuing campaign against drinking and driving is our Christmas advertising. From today, 2,000 poster sites will tell the public that at least 1,100 people a year are killed


by drivers who have been drinking. The posters brand drinking drivers as a menace to society. The clear message is, "Do not drink and drive."

Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and for the new campaign to try to deter people from drinking and driving this Christmas. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to have a sustained campaign throughout the year? The problem of drinking and driving does not appear only at Christmas, but exists throughout the year and, most of all, when people have forgotten the warnings given at Christmas.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Drinking and driving is a menace to everybody in society. We need a campaign, not just to get at the person who knows that he is a drinking driver—there are not that many of those—but to get all those around us to remind us every month and week of the year that drinking and driving do not mix.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As it is probably agreed that drinking drivers are potential murderers, will the hon. Gentleman accept that there will be widespread public support for a more robust attitude to this problem? Will he ensure that his writ extends to Scotland, because one of my constituents was killed by one of these drivers? All that the offender got was an admonition and five years' suspension of licence.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member will be pleased to know that, at the launch of the anti-drink driving campaign, we had an assistant chief constable from Scotland with us. I am glad that we are working in partnership with the police in getting the message across. The key point, although sentences and court procedures are important, is to stop people from offending. That is what cuts out the accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Mr. Cormack: Would it not be appropriate for those who kill when they are drunk and driving to be automatically charged with manslaughter?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that that is not a point for this Department. Florence Nightingale talked about the effects of alcohol as an anaeshetic. On her deathbed in 1910, she said that it was a killer. People need to appreciate that point and not just look on the courts or the law as an excuse for doing what too many peeople do, and that is knowlingly to drink and then to drive.

Mr. Boyes: I welcome the clarity of the Minister's message for this Christmas and his promise to keep up a sustained campaign. Does he agree that the problem will be made worse by the growth in the number of hand-held telephones in cars? Some drunken loonies will be driving at the same time as making a phone call. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has inserted a strong paragraph in next year's edition of the "Highway Code", but does he agree that it is time to outlaw hand-held telephones now that a suitable and adequate alternative is available?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that if I went into too much detail I should be slightly out of order, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the clear advice which will be in the "Highway Code"—not only do not drink and drive, but do not use a hand-held telephone when driving.

Mr. Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to remove the offence of drinking and driving from

the criminal justice system and to stop it causing conflict between the police and the public would be to adopt the new technology, on which some motor manufacturers are working, whereby it is impossible to start a car engine when the breath has been analysed and revealed evidence of drink or drugs? Will that not solve the problem? Will my hon. Friend encourage that technology?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall certainly consider that technology carefully. Even if such a device were introduced within, say four years, for the next 24 years most cars would be unconverted. We need to convert the more than 20 million licence holders who at present are killing 120 people a month to the idea that they should not be doing that. They are the ones who can stop it.

Mr. Stott: I am sure the Minister is aware that Labour Members share his concern and are fully behind any Government measure that will deter people from drinking and driving. Will he ask his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for public transport—the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell)—how he can believe in the deregulation of our bus system in view of the fact that the evidence so far leads us to believe that there will be no public transport on Christmas day or Boxing day and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) tells me, no trains in England and Wales? This cannot be good for the hon. Gentleman's campaign, which we support. Will the Minister have a word with his hon. Friend to get the buses on the road on Christmas day. In addition——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.

Mr. Stott: I shall do my best, Sir. In a written answer to me, the Minister revealed that throughout this year his Department spent £1·5 million on a drink and drive campaign, but last year the Department spent £1·4 million at Christmas alone. That represents a serious drop in the amount that his Department is spending on this campaign. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good idea to reduce expenditure at such a time?

Mr. Bottomley: Deregulation of buses means more minibuses, so more people are likely to be able to get a ride to where they live. The Brewers Society—[Interruption.] If the Opposition would care to listen to the answer, they might find that they can help to reduce drinking and driving in their constituencies. They might want to draw more attention to the Brewers Society campaign, "Don't get a ban. Get a bus, taxi, mini-cab, train, tube or a lift." There has been greatly increased spending on reducing road casualties. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman would welcome the £2 million that the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation has spent and will hope that this is a growing trend.
I think that about 30 million people saw television coverage of the launch of the anti-drinking and driving campaign on Wednesday. I regret that some people used that massive exposure to the danger of drinking and driving to argue either about the amount of money being spent or about the law. This month is the time to get the drink-driving message home to people—they can stop it themselvess.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress. We must speed up a little.

Buses (Deregulation)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following deregulation of the buses.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): As might be expected with such a major change, I have received a diversity of representations.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, far from deregulation causing just a few initial problems, many people have suffered from a deterioration in the services available to them? When will he take action to do something about that? Does he accept that there has been a deterioration in employees' working conditions, in addition to the many redundancies?

Mr. Mitchell: Deregulation has been in operation for just over one month. Unfortunately, in some bus companies it has shown up a lower standard of preparation than in others. However, over much of the country it is proceeding very well. There are gainers and losers in deregulation. The losers will complain, but very rarely will the gainers come out and say that they are gainers.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the problems that arose in Lancashire were caused by the incompetence of the Labour-controlled education authority? It would be much appreciated if the pupils from Kirkland Church of England school could be assisted by the provision of a socially necessary bus to take them to school, because they have to cross the A6. Will the Lancashire county council kindly co-operate?

Mr. Mitchell: Those matters are entirely within the competence of Lancashire county council. It has saved over £5 million by deregulation. It has enough money to bathe in when it comes to providing additional services.

British Rail

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on delays on British Rail in the past year.

Mr. Mitchell: Separate records are not kept for representations on delays. On quality of service generally, I estimate that some 400 representations have been received by my Department in the past year. That is about one complaint for every 2 million journeys.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware of the steadily escalating incidence of complaints from all parts of the United Kingdom about the inter-city service? Why does he not keep lists and refer to them? Why does he not keep lists and take them to the chairman of British Rail and present them as complaints, because everyone wants something to be done? Is it not the role of the Minister who has responsibility for those matters to ensure that the public interest is preserved? Why does he not do his job properly?

Mr. Mitchell: As I said, one complaint for every 2 million passengers does not seem to be as excessive as the hon. Gentleman tries to suggest. The operation of local services is a matter for British Rail management. The Government's job is to set the objectives. We set the objectives and have included in them particular reference to quality standards.

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend not deplore the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who constantly seeks to deplore the activities of British Rail, which is most certainly on the right path? When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the dichotomy between the operator's timetable and the published timetable, so that the gap is widened to a realistic one? Secondly, will he see whether telephones can be provided much more frequently on 125 trains and that they operate within tunnels in the unlikely event of a delay on a train?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct to suggest that sometimes the rail services attempt to provide the fastest possible service. If British Rail went a little slower on the timetable it would more frequently achieve punctuality in the provision of service. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remark about telephones on trains to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Malins: Many of my constituents in Croydon are commuters to London. Apparently, they are going to put up with a small increase in prices, but the main concentration needs to be on the quality, reliability and frequency of service. Can my hon. Friend give some reassurance to south London commuters that those matters will be concentrated upon?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend can have the assurance that he seeks. I need hardly add that as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also represents a Croydon constituency, it is a matter that does not escape his gimlet eye. [Interruption.] British Rail staff on Network South East should be substantially praised for what they have achieved. Punctuality has improved from 87 per cent. within five minutes in the spring, to 91 per cent. at present. The staff should be given credit for that.

Mr. Snape: Does the Minister agree that fares have risen dramatically on British Rail since 1979, at a much greater rate than the rate of inflation, while punctuality standards over the seven years have fallen away equally dramatically? Is he aware that BR's response to the falling away in punctuality is to deny the available statistics to the central transport users consultative committee, supposedly on the ground that the statistics are being misused? Would it not be a good idea to have for once some action from Ministers, rather than flannel in the Chamber?

Mr. Mitchell: The average fare increase on British Rail is 4·9 per cent. That is only 1 per cent. or 1·5 per cent. above the rate of inflation. If the hon. Gentleman looks back over the past five years, he will find that the rate of fare increase has been little different from the increase in the level of inflation.

Buses (Deregulation)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the current situation following the deregulation of bus services under the Transport Act 1985.

Mr. Moore: Deregulation has gone well in most areas, and local teething problems are being solved. There are service improvements in many places, for example, the introduction of minibuses, and worthwhile savings in subsidy have been made by many local authorities.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that there are differences of view about deregulation? Does he accept


that it should be common ground that there are problems of timetabling and the booking of through services? Does he accept that local authorities have a part to play, if he will instruct them to do that and provide finance to allow them to carry that out?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is a clear role for local authorities to play. However, the question is whether that should be voluntary or statutory bound. In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the west midlands, where one operator is running 90 per cent. of the services, and where there is no apparent difficulty. I will examine the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that there is a need for cash, but there is a need and an opportunity for authorities to co-ordinate.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the management of Midland Fox on the introduction of its new fox cub service, which has brought a successful minibus service to the county of Leicestershire, reduced the fares on its buses and brought in a better frequency of service and reliability which the Leicester city council bus service could not offer.

Mr. Moore: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is right in every detail.

Mr. Mason: Does the Minister accept that the truth about bus deregulation in south Yorkshire is that it has resulted in major fare increases, a loss of passengers, a worse service in the towns and disastrous services in rural areas? Who, therefore, has benefited?

Mr. Moore: The ratepayers might question the right hon. Gentleman's point. For some considerable time south Yorkshire has been paying £60 per head for each man, woman and child for its subsidised services.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Raynsford: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what comparative studies have been carried out to the knowledge of his Department on the respective advantage of passenger-vehicle segregation as against passengers remaining with their vehicles on the Channel tunnel shuttle service, particularly from the point of view of safety in the tunnel.

Mr. David Mitchell: No comparative studies of this kind have been carried out. The Anglo-French bodies concerned with safety in the Channel tunnel will consider whether the arrangements that Eurotunnel has proposed are acceptable, rather than analysing variations which have not been proposed.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that there is considerable public concern on this issue and that it would be appropriate for comparative studies to be carried out to make sure that, whatever mode is proposed for transport through the Channel tunnel on the ferry vehicles, the safest possible mode of transport is employed? Does he also accept that Lord Pennock the chairman of Eurotunnel, has said that he would be perfectly happy for such evaluations to take place? Would it not therefore be sensible for the Government to agree an amendment to the Bill to allow that to happen?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not know how widespread is the public concern, although I am very much aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. Naturally, safety is a vitally

important part, to which considerable attention has been given. The safety authorities are gathering information worldwide on, for example, fires in tunnels, on board ships and in multi-storey car parks. They are gathering information with which to make a proper assessment when an application is made to them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give authority for British Rail to release for publication the report comparing London termini for the Channel tunnel so that we may see the detail of what led British Rail to state that Waterloo was its preferred choice?

Mr. Mitchell: The release of internal British Rail documents is for British Rail to decide, but I will draw the chairman's attention to the hon. Gentleman's request.

London Buses

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the efficiency of London buses; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend receives representations from time to time from hon. Members, interested organisations and members of the public about the efficiency of bus services in London.

Mr. Greenway: Notwithstanding the problems of traffic congestion, what is London Buses Ltd. doing to make its services more efficient and regular and to avoid bunching? Will he tell my constituents why a one-man 207 bus should be more efficient than the previous two-man service, which did not cause a bunching of traffic behind it or delays to long queues of people waiting to get on?

Mr. Mitchell: Whether particular routes should be one person operated is a matter for London Buses Ltd. It has invested in 260 buses with easier access for elderly people, which I think my hon. Friend will welcome. He should also be aware that there are three times as many boarding and alighting accidents on open platform buses and four times as many assaults on crews of two-man buses as on OPO buses.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware of the amount of violence on the 52 and 16 bus routes in the area known as the Kilburn triangle? I welcome today's statement about steps to be taken to deal with violence on public transport. Will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to protecting conductors on those routes?

Mr. Mitchell: I very much concur with the hon. Gentleman's views about the protection of bus crews and indeed, passengers, but details of the 52 bus service are matters for management, not for me.

A46 (Lincoln)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will specify in detail his plans for improving the A46 between Lincoln and the A1.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Investigations into the possibility of improving the standard of the existing road to provide greater opportunity for overtaking are continuing. There are no specific schemes at present.

Mr. Carlisle: As the road is an essential link between Lincoln and the A1 and the midlands, and its bad state has


destroyed many jobs in Lincolnshire, does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time the studies were completed and the improvements made? Will he undertake to work out the exact detail of where and when the much-needed improvements will take place?

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps it would be best for me to have a talk with my hon. Friend when the studies are completed. I fully understand his concern.

Docklands Light Railway

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning his policy for funding extensions of the Docklands light railway.

Mr. David Mitchell: Expenditure contemplated by London Regional Transport on extensions of the Docklands light railway would have to meet the Government's criteria for public sector investment.

Mr. Spearing: That does not answer the question. Who will fund the extension? Will the funds come from public or private, sources, or a mixture of both, or has the Minister not decided yet? Has he noticed the mutually incompatible statements by the director of the London Docklands Development Corporation and from his office as published in the press?

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the Bill has been deposited. The Government have been assured by the London Docklands Development Corporation that, in its view, the project could go ahead without any expectation of Government contribution to capital or running costs. Before the Bill proceeds to Second Reading the Government will wish to examine the specific arrangements to be made by the LDDC to ensure that there is no significant risk that any of the cost would fall as a burden on LRT. We shall also want to see a full financial and economic appraisal of the railway project from LRT.

Buses (Deregulation)

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Transport Act 1986.

Mr. Moore: As I have already said, I am encouraged by the way deregulation of local bus services has been implemented. I have also been greatly impressed by the way in which local authorities have implemented the system of competitive tendering for subsidised services which is provided for in the Act.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new system is already beginning to show savings to local authorities over subsidised services? Has he had time to consult my hon. and close Friend the Minister responsible for roads and traffic about his inaugural ride on the Haslemere town bus, which is one of two new bus services in my constituency, which have been introduced since deregulation, with a considerable saving to the ratepayers?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. There have been substantial savings of approximately £40 million a year. The savings in the Surrey area appear to be about £1 million a year. I do not have such a close relationship with

the Minister responsible for public safety, roads and traffic as does my hon. Friend, but despite that we have communicated on that subject.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister of State has admitted that there has probably been an over-registration of commercial services, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the authorities concerned the possibility of providing more money to make up the existing shortfall as well as the expected shortfall in socially desirable services?

Mr. Moore: In the debate last week my hon. Friend the Minister of State made it quite clear that there might be some marginal impact on costs, but nothing like the £40 million in savings that has already come from the more effective tendering for subsidised services.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Family Courts

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Attorney-General when he expects to make an announcement on the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's consultation document on family courts.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Attorney-General how many responses he has received to the "Interdepartmental Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction" paper.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The responses to the consultation paper, which was published by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 13 May, were due by 31 October. One hundred and seventy four have been received and, as one would expect in an exercise of this nature, different views have been expressed on the whole range of issues canvassed in the consultation paper. The Government will make an announcement as soon as possible when the responses have been analysed and the resource implications of the main options for a family court have been assessed.

Mrs. Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is high time that we had action rather than words on family courts? We need an integrated, coherent and accessible system of family courts. More than 160,000 children a year are involved in divorce cases, and there are 20 different ways of going into local authority care. It is, therefore, time for action. Without jeopardising my overwhelming case, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend has had time to consider the situation in Australia, where progress has already been made towards a federal family court system?

The Solicitor-General: As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, we think of little else. With regard to the former part, in fairness to the Lord Chancellor I should remind my hon. Friend that the consultation paper was issued only in May this year and that the consultation period finished only on 31 October. There is much criticism of the present system, but there needs to be a proper analysis.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the Solicitor-General looked at the representations from the Social Democratic Lawyers Association? Has he noticed that, with reasonable economy, it has advocated a system of family courts which enables child care cases to be more sensitively handled


than they can be at present and also allows couples to seek to settle their differences without full adversarial proceedings in court?

The Solicitor-General: The Social Democratic Lawyers Association has achieved immortality by being referred to in this report. Its recommendations will, of course, receive the same serious consideration as all the others.

Mr. Sims: My right hon. and learned Friend has suggested that there are different views on the form that family courts should take. Will he assure us that those views will not be taken as an excuse for inaction? I commend to him the initiative of the family courts campaign, which has sought some consensus.
As there has been general consultation, is it not appropriate for the House to have an opportunity to debate the proposals, and will he put that suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware of that suggestion. A variety of options are available and they were set out in chapter 8 of this report. Most people would agree that there are defects in the present [Interruption.] I do not wish to take up unnecessary time. Most people agree that there are many criticisms to be made of the present system, but there is less agreement on what is a desirable alternative.

State Security

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Attorney-General on how many possible prosecutions he has sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions over the last two months.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions. The last meeting took place on 25 November 1986.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Attorney-General accept that there is no Government indivisibility on questions of criminal prosecution and that those decisions are uniquely and exclusively decisions of the Attorney-General?
Does the Attorney-General further accept that if the Government had wanted to stop Pincher and West's books they could have done so by taking action under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 against those who leaked to West and Pincher, including Mr. Martin? Action could also have been taken action against West and Pincher themselves, and also against the publishers of those two books. In so far as the Attorney-General did not take action, has he not been negligent, and should he not now consider resigning?

The Attorney-General: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. When I am wearing my hat as Attorney-General and prosecutor, nobody can influence me and I would not accept any attempt to influence me from anybody. When the Government are acting as Government in civil proceedings I happen, by tradition, to be the nominal plaintiff and that is what has happened here.
I answered a question from the hon. Gentleman last week, and there is nothing that I wish to add to that about the prosecution of any of those particular individuals. So far as resigning is concerned, let me say this: I have no intention of resigning. I have had that most wonderful and loyal support from the Prime Minister, for which I am extremely grateful.

Mr. Stanbrook: Did one of those occasions to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred concern the successful action against the book "One Girl's War"? Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us about the principles on which he acts in such cases?

The Attorney-General: The principle concerning the book of the late Mrs. Miller is exactly the same principle as that on which we have started the proceedings in the Australian courts.

Mr. Abse: Does the Attorney-General agree that when all the spy froth has disappeared, the important fact is whether his office remains inviolate and is not dominated by the Prime Minister or any so-called collective decision?
On what basis, and on what precedent, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman base the view that he is able to have instructions on civil matters, such as are taking place in Australia, and as has been canvassed in The Times, clearly on information coming from No. 10? On what basis does he rest the view that he can take instructions from the Cabinet to commence proceedings? Does he not realise that there is widespread concern at the Bar, within tie legal profession and among all within the legal profession and among all libertarians that his office is being assailed and that he is being manipulated by a Prime Minister who is dominating the whole of these proceedings?

The Attorney-General: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for many years. I am quite able to look after my independence, and I always have. The hon. Gentleman must realise—and as a lawyer I am surprised that he does not—that this was a Government decision and, of course, like my fellow Ministers, I accept collective responsibility.

Mr. Hayes: May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that most, if not all, of us in the Conservative party feel that he has behaved with honour and dignity throughout these proceedings? Does he agree that none of this sorry saga would have occurred if one former intelligence officer had not put greed before principle, and one leader of the Opposition had not put ambition before his country?

The Attorney-General: On the last point, I am not responsible for the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition. On the first point, the idea that we can allow officers or ex-officers of the security services to write books would probably end with us not having any important secrets which should be preserved.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General confirm that the decision to prosecute a receiver as well as a supplier allegedly in breach of the Official Secrets Act is a matter solely for the Attorney-General? Will he also confirm that it is the Attorney-General's duty to determine the public interest before commencing the injunctive process to ban a book, and not the duty of Ministers collectively, according to the precedents of the Gouriet case and the Crossman diaries? Why was he not consulted on the Pincher book? Is it another example of the Prime Minister flouting the conventions, as in the leaking of the Law Officer's letters in the Westland case?

The Attorney-General: If I answered all those questions, the next Minister would never get to the Dispatch Box. It is the same old story of the right hon. and learned Gentleman becoming too party political on occasions. Just


as he accuses me of kow-towing to the Prime Minister, which is wholly untrue, I suspect that he may be responding to the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

United Nations (Funds)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he intends to pledge to the United Nations international children's emergency Fund and the United Nations development programme for the forthcoming year.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): At the annual United Nations pledging conference last month we announced contributions for 1987, subject to parliamentary approval, of £21·5 million for the United Nations development programme and of £6·5 million for the United Nations children's fund. In addition, I have agreed a further £1 million for UNICEF's special appeal for Africa.

Mr. Beith: I welcome the £1 million for the UNICEF special appeal, but does the Minister recognise that those levels of contributions mean that Britain is giving only half as much to UNICEF as is Norway, which has a population that is only one tenth of ours? Is he aware that we receive three times as much money to be spent by the United Nations development fund in Britain as the British Government give to that fund. Surely the Government can do better than that?

Mr. Patten: I think I am right in saying that we make the second largest contribution to UNICEF, in the European Community. I value the work done by UNICEF, which is why we make a contribution not only to the regular programme but to special appeals. We have made a reasonable contribution in the past two years and I am sure that we shall continue to consider the fund's special appeals. I am meeting the director of the UNDP later this week.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the special programme of innoculation of children will be extremely expensive? I think that it would work out at about £5 per child. Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend sympathetically consider making further money available for that project, because it will capture the imagination and win the support of the whole British people? They will appreciate that something practical can be done, to the eternal benefit of future generations.

Mr. Patten: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. This year we made an additional contribution to immunisation and I am sure that we shall make an equally generous response to future special appeals. I should like to put on record our support for UNICEF's work on spreading oral rehydration therapy.

Third World

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put more aid into health and population projects in the Third world.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have recently reviewed our policy in this respect. In 1985 we spent about £38 million on

health and population. We shall be giving more emphasis in future to primary health care and associated population programmes.

Mr. Bowden: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that there is a close connection between the limitation of population and economic and social development? As that is the case could priority be given to programmes on family planning in our aid to the Third world?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend may have noticed that at the Development Council meeting of the EC, which I chaired, on 11 November, we agreed guidelines on population policy for the first time. They are firmly based on principles of individual choice and of refusal to accept coercion. They move in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister follow and further develop the policy of his two predecessors of ensuring that there is a population component in every major overseas aid project, wherever it may be?

Mr. Patten: That is a valuable policy development. Last week I saw what we are doing to help a population programme in Pakistan. There is an intimate relationship between population programmes, primary health care and drives for greater literacy.

Mr. Key: Has my hon. Friend yet had time to assess the impact on our overseas aid programme of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and is he satisfied that the forecast growth in the budget will be able to take that on board?

Mr. Patten: We have already made a contribution to the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS. I share my hon. Friend's considerable concern about the subject. Officials from my Department attended a conference on that issue at Brazzaville a couple of weeks ago. We were one of the few donors to be represented at that conference and we shall be considering our policy when I am able to talk to the officials who went there.

Overseas Aid

Mr. Wareing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to alter expenditure on overseas aid; and if he will set a limit on the aid and trade provision.

Mr. Chris Patten: As a result of this year's public expenditure survey the revised aid baseline for 1987–88 will be £1,235 million. There is a limit each year on the aid and trade provision budget.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister's trite answer not show the Government's rather complacent attitude? Since 1979 there has been a 15·8 per cent. real reduction in the overseas aid, budget. Is it not a function of the ATP to reduce that? Is it not about time that there was real direct Government aid in order to bring our figure nearer to the figure which was designated as realistic by the United Nations?

Mr. Patten: The ATP has the same purpose now as it had when it was introduced by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), that is, to allow British exporters to compete for contracts that are part of sound projects in developing countries.
As for the overall size of our aid budget, I am pleased that next year we shall be spending £48 million more than this year, the following year £88 million more than this year, and the year after that £128 million more than this year.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend's recent negotiations on the EC's food aid programme result in a change in expenditure in the overseas development budget? If so, where will he put the savings or increased expenditure on effective food aid?

Mr. Patten: The changes that we were successful in pushing through at the Development Council meeting last month will not reduce the amount of money that is spent on food aid through the EC. We still have to deal with one or two institutional problems, but the changes should ensure that that money is sensibly spent in a developmentally sound way.

Aid and Trade Provisions

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total sum expended in the current financial year under the aid and trade provisions; and what are the maximum and minimum estimates of the outturn for the year 1986–87.

Mr. Chris Patten: For the current financial year aid and trade provision expenditure up to the end of October 1986 was £64·08 million. The amount available for expenditure in 1986–87 is £90 million, which is expected to be fully spent.

Mr. Spearing: Do not those figures, and the additional figure of about £100 million that the Minister has just mentioned, throw further light on the controversy relating to the aid and trade provision? The Minister used the words "developmentally sound". Would it not be better to use even £2 million or £3 million to restore the vicious and arbitrary cuts in the scientific services of the overseas development fund, which could be important in the relief of famine and the prevention of hunger?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall explain the figure for this year. This year the ATP budget was increased, exceptionally, to cope with the large Malaysian rural water supply project which slipped into this year and resulted in an underspend of ATP last year. The increase came from within the existing aid budget, but it did not affect other planned programmes, because we brought forward annual payments to some international bodies into last year.

Mr. Stanbrook: Instead of spreading the available money thinly over thousands of projects—however much moral satisfaction that gives us—will my hon. Friend consider concentrating the assistance on fewer projects, especially rural water supplies, which, fundamentally, will benefit the recipients much more than will the accumulation of minute quantities of aid?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of a sensible balance in a

programme. I totally agree also with what he said about the importance of rural water schemes. Last week in Pakistan I saw what we have successfully achieved in irrigation and drainage schemes.

Central America and the Caribbean

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way he intends to increase the United Kingdom aid programme to Central America and the Caribbean.

Mr. Chris Patten: We intend to continue our substantial aid programme in this area. The needs of each country will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Holland: The Minister will be aware that the World bank and the Inter-American Development Bank recently have lent nothing to Nicaragua, leant on as these institutions have been in turn by the President of the United States. The President seems to have the same attitude towards multilateral lending to Nicaragua as he has to the decision of the International Court of Justice at The Hague or recent finance to the Contras via arms sales to Iran. Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from that discrimination by one of the world's biggest powers against one of the world's least developed countries and initiate a bilateral programme for Central America and the Caribbean area, of which Nicaragua can be a beneficiary?

Mr. Patten: I am delighted to have the opportunity to make our position absolutely clear. We judge loans by the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank entirely on their economic and technical merits. It is important to consider the programmes in the entire area in terms of what we do bilaterally and what the European Community does. European Community aid to Central America was £25·8 million in the last year for which we have figures. The EDF VI allows more for the Caribbean—about £109·6 million. We contribute about a fifth of those figures. Our contribution to the Central American and Caribbean countries bilaterally is about £46 million. That is a substantial programme.

Mr. Stuart Holland: And Nicaragua?

Mr. Patten: Nicaragua does not receive as much as other countries, such as Honduras, because it is not as poor.

Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it relevant to questions?

Mr. Gow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall take it later.

The Attorney-General

Mr. John Morris: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the office and conduct of the Attorney-General.
First, the matter is specific, since it arises from the evidence of Sir Robert Armstrong, whereby he withdrew his earlier testimony that the decision not to seek to prohibit the publication of the book "Their Trade is Treachery" was the decision of the Attorney-General.
Secondly, the matter is important in that it is commonly understood that a decision on what is in the public interest is a matter for the Attorney-General and does not engage the collective responsibility of the Government. That was the understanding of Sir Robert Armstrong. Among the precedents are the Crossman Diaries and the Gouriet case, where the decision to seek an injunction was taken, if hon. Members did not know it, by the Attorney-General.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister told the House that in the Wright case the decisions were taken by the Government, not by individual Ministers. She said that the Government were indivisible. If that is what has happened, it is a radical departure. The matter is urgent because, apparently, there has been a departure from the well-known and established convention. The role of the Attorney-General as the independent legal adviser of the Government is deemed superfluous. Other anonymous lawyers supplant his role. Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, as in the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter in the Westland affair, arrogantly assume to themselves the Attorney-General's long-standing constitutional duties. The Attorney-General is answerable to this House. If his role is now understood to be different, the matter should be debated urgently by the House.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the office and conduct of the Attorney-General.
I listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given preference over the Orders set down for today or tomorrow, and to take into account the criteria of the Standing Order. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which he has raised meets all those criteria and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Telephone Tapping

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
interference with the telephones of Members of Parliament.
I gave you notice of the subject, Mr. Speaker, at 8.45 this morning.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on 31 October 1983, at column 255, I asked the Prime Minister a question about telephone tapping, to which she gave a substantive answer. I believe that the matter is specific because I was telephoned by a distinguished member of the Press Gallery, whose name I gave to the Clerk of the House yesterday, on the subject of the third question to the Attorney-General today which relates to the Law Officer's letter. He volunteered the information that when the telephone behaves very strangely it means that it is being interfered with.
I have further to report that last night at 8 o'clock I was telephoned by someone who purported to be Mr. John Gordon, giving information which obviously came from a very informed source. When I put it to him that that was not his real name and that he had better be very careful, he said, "I understand perfectly well. I have not given my real name because I understand that your telephone is being tampered with."
I would not have raised the matter had it related only to me, but something much more important is involved—the telephone of the Leader of the Opposition. Bluntly, with the whole history of Ponting and the Conqueror diaries, I am used to this. What is more important is the telephone of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not jump to any conclusions as to why newspapers ranging from The Mirror to the Daily Telegraph have asked how information came into the public domain relating to telephone calls between the Leader of the Opposition and Australia. However, I say that this matter deserves a statement from the Government, because the basic question is whether we can be certain that the assurances that were given solemnly by the Prime Minister in 1983 and repeated in another place to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Putney are valid. Can we be certain that Members of Parliament's telephones are not interfered with? If we cannot be certain of that, let us at least have an explanation of what happened with the telephone of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
interference with the telephones of Members of Parliament.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said about this matter, but I regret that I do not consider it appropriate for discussion under standing Order No. 20. Nevertheless, it is a serious allegation, and I am sure that the whole House will have listened carefully to what he said. I cannot submit his application to the House.

Opposition Parties (Financial Support)

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an urgent review of arrangements for Government financial support of Opposition parties.
The reason for putting this case at this time is that we have a unique Opposition, with a unique Leader of the Opposition. This is a gravely important matter. I believe that there is no previous experience of a Privy Councillor involving himself with a lawyer in opposition to the Crown in a court case in a foreign country on issues relating to national security.
In considering the level of financial support to award to this Opposition, I believe that there are a number of specific issues that should be raised. The Leader of the Opposition has said, in a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, that his office has been involved in several phone calls to Mr. Turnbull in Australia. The sequence was initiated from Mr. Turnbull's office by Mr. Leigh, who I understand is a close acquaintance of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to Mr. Turnbull. Subsequently, there were two phone calls from Mr. Charles Clarke, of the Leader of the Opposition's office, to Mr. Turnbull. This was followed by five phone calls from Mr. Turnbull to the Leader of the Opposition's office.
If one is to assume, charitably, that Mr. Clarke was an innocent seeker after the truth in ringing the Leader of the Opposition's office—a truth, moreover, that was available to the Leader of the Opposition's office by other means—what was the role of Mr. Turnbull in ringing up the Leader of the Opposition? What were the details of that conversation? Did Mr. Turnbull ask advice of the Leader of the Opposition? Did the Leader of the Opposition's office offer advice to Mr. Turnbull? What advice, if any, was given to the Leader of the Opposition by this lawyer fighting the Crown in Australia? What collusion has there been?
Allegations have also been made which the debate could clear up. Have members of the Leader of the Opposition's office been in Australia over the last few weeks, and what have they been doing? We on this side of the House are disinclined to accept allegations against those who are unable to defend themselves. A debate on the financial support of Opposition parties would give the Leader of the Opposition, who is currently undermining the United Kingdom's defence policy in the United States, a chance to explain whether he has also been undermining our security policy in Australia.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an urgent review of arrangements for Government financial support of Opposition parties.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

The Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, please, about what arose in the House, as recorded in the Official Report, on Friday of last week. When you were not in the Chair the Leader of the Opposition said:
I have with me a statement which I deliberately brought into the House".
In the following column Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
If this is a personal statement, the right hon. Gentleman should send it to Mr. Speaker."—[Official Report, 28 November 1986; Vol. 106, c. 559–60.]
Subsequently, the office of the Leader of the Opposition issued a copy of a letter dated 28 November, addressed to you. The final paragraph of that letter reads:
With your permission I would like to release the text to the Press.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, at what time you received that letter and whether you did, indeed, give your consent to the release of that statement? This is described—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gow: It is described by the Leader of the Opposition as a personal statement. Do not all personal statements to the House have to be cleared by you? Is it not the case that, by long tradition, the Speaker will give his approval to a personal statement only if what appears in it is approved by him? Is there not, moreover, a long tradition that a personal statement is non-controversial? It would be difficult to imagine a personal statement that is more controversial, more tendentious and, in many respects, less faithful to the truth than that from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I can clear up the matter. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time was quite correct in saying that it was not a personal statement. The hon. Gentleman, however, is right to say that personal statements have to be cleared with me. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to me at about 3 pm, although I cannot be quite certain of the time. What I said to him was that it could be issued as a press statement.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Leader of the Opposition commented on the point of order that I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker on Friday, he said that he would be willing to make a personal explanation, either directly to the House or in a written form, taking them as equivalent. We would like to know whether he sought permission to make a personal statement to the House, and if not, whether he will be given the opportunity to do so.
In view of the precedent in "Erskine May" that a right hon. or hon. Member may make a statement on behalf of a Member of Parliament who is abroad, will you give one of the Leader of the Opposition's right hon. Friends an opportunity to make a statement to the House explaining the very grave matters that are dealt with unsatisfactorily in that letter? A vague allusion to five calls made to the Leader of the Opposition's office, after he was in receipt of the full transcript, cannot be satisfactory. We need to know what those conversations——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going into the merits of the matter. I repeat that Mr. Deputy


Speaker was quite correct to say that it was not a personal statement. It is hypothetical whether the Leader of the Opposition will seek to make a personal statement, but it certainly would not be in those terms.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have got off on a very bad tack. Every day there are points of order, and I have nothing really to add to what I have said. Does the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) wish to raise a point of order on the same issue?

Mr. Banks: Not really.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later, so that I can clear up this matter first.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is connected to the others. You will have realised that when questions were being put to the Attorney-General we reached only one question that had anything to do with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Given all the current controversy, Opposition Members have raised points of order before asking that the Attorney-General should make a statement. Today was the Attorney-General's chance to answer questions, yet in the 10 minutes allocated only one question was reached. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The issue is being debated and discussed in the country, yet the House has a small and limited opportunity to ask about what is happening in Australia.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition should make a statement. What is required is not that he should make a statement but that the Prime Minister should do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the length of time given to ministerial questions is not a matter for the Chair. The Attorney-General answered three questions, of which two were linked.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The document to which reference has been made arises from the early-day motion which I tabled and which has been signed by 52 of my colleagues. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for a so-called personal statement to be made, issued through your office——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not issued through my office, and I have already said that it was not a personal statement.

Mr. Hickmet: Given the contents of the document, Mr. Speaker, will you rule whether it would be proper for the Leader of the Opposition not to hold the House in contempt and to return to explain why he is colluding with those who seek to undermine this country's security, and why he has behaved with dishonour in his relations with Mr.——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order on the same subject?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said a few moments ago that, essentially, the Leader of the Opposition had asked for your guidance on the circumstances in which a personal statement might be made. You advised him of that which he should know already, which is that he would have to proceed by way of a press statement. As it was in the Leader of the Opposition's mind that a personal statement should be made, is it not appropriate that there should be some way of enabling him, if not compelling him, to do so, bearing in mind that he has now made it abundantly clear that he has had personal contacts with the agent of a man in Australia——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those are not matters for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the past 10 minutes, you have heard several points of order which follow on from your decision on the Standing Order No. 20 application of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It has crossed my mind, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt the minds of many others in the Chamber, that we should be considering again the possibility of having a debate on the issue raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, especially as many Tories want to take part in such a debate. It might be that tomorrow we shall have the unusual event of a joint application being made under Standing Order No. 20, which, if granted, will mean that we shall be able to hear what Conservative Members have to say about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to draw the connection between the Prime Minister's involvement in this affair and that parliamentary wimp who acts as Attorney-General.

Mr. Robert Adley: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, following the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley). As I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition said that he had a personal statement to make and that you decided, quite properly, that it was not a personal statement. Surely this means that either the right hon. Gentleman was misleading the House, or he does not know the procedure of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is anything more to be said about that. Every right hon. and hon. Member can occasionally be mistaken in what he or she is seeking to do in terms of what is in order. The Leader of the Opposition was quite correctly pulled up by Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the matter was dealt with in that way. As for the propriety or otherwise of issuing press statements, I think it is fairly well known that nearly every Member of this place issues a press statement nearly every weekend.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): "Wimp" is a reasonably contemporary term, Mr. Speaker, but is it in order to describe any Member of Parliament, including the Attorney-General, as a "parliamentary wimp"?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether it is unparliamentary, but it is certainly an undignified and offensive word to use, and I think that it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Skinner: He has been kicked from pillar to post by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is a good and experienced Member, and very helpful to the Chair, to withdraw the word "wimp".

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member, please—[Interruption.]

Mr. Skinner: No.

Mr. Speaker: Then I must ask the hon. Member to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: No. The word is not unparliamentary. The Leader of the House has said that it is not unparliamentary. I am prepared to substitute "wally" for it.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Nothing of substance has been said by Opposition Members about the statement on Friday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to merit my speaking, but I take account of the intervention by the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption]—the Leader of the House. He will be the Leader of the Opposition. I am merely anticipating.
I heard the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) refer to my right hon. Friend' s behaviour as "behaviour with dishonour". I do not think that that is parliamentary or acceptable language. I hope that you will be as stern with him as you were with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fair is fair and the same must apply to all. Will the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) withdraw any imputation of dishonour?

Mr. Hickmet: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker. In his letter the Leader of the Opposition said——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you very much. Later—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the Leader of the Opposition is presently explaining to the American people why he thinks the Western Alliance should be dismantled rather than——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if he is, what has that to do with me?

Mr. Hamilton: It is further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney

(Mr. Shore). Although I accept that the Leader of the Opposition has not acted with dishonour, but is not an affront to the dignity of the House that he should be in daily contact with Mr. Turnbull——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing at all to do with me.

Mr. Rob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) willingly withdrew a statement that he made about the Leader of the Opposition, despite the contents of the letter which the right hon. Gentleman has placed in the Library. I did not hear, nor, I believe, did most hon. Members hear, a similar withdrawal by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Speaker: I think that it was perfectly audible at this end of the Chamber. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) replaced one very offensive word by another which is less offensive, and which I frequently see in the newspapers.

Mr. Michael Brown: You said just now that, as far as you were concerned, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had withdrawn one offensive word and replaced it with another offensive word. Will you ask him to withdraw that word?

Mr. Speaker: I did not say that. I did not only use the word "offensive". I said that the hon. Member introduced another word, which I frequently see in the newspapers.

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have in the past rightly pointed out that you protect the rights and interests of Bank Benchers. Will you give us an assurance, in view of a number of statements that have been made inside and outside the House, that the rights of Members of Parliament extend to the confidentiality of their telephone calls, whether in terms of a direct tap or through GCHQ? Will you give an assurance, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members' telephone conversations in this place are in confidence? Can you tell us whether the rules that have been followed by successive Prime Ministers about the tapping of hon. Members' telephones still apply?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to both questions is yes. As for the telephone conversations of hon. Members in the House, I propose to look into that matter.

Orders of the Day — Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill implements the proposal announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement to accelerate, on a carefully targeted basis, the arrangements for the repayment of advance petroleum revenue tax due to oil companies.
Hon. Members will be aware of the background to this proposal. In his statement my right hon. Friend referred to the effects of the fall in the oil price on North sea activity and the consequences for the offshore supplies industry. The fall in the price of oil has had a marked impact on the economics of North sea activity. This has presented both the oil companies and the offshore supply industry with difficult transitional problems. The industry has had to reassess project plans and has begun to meet the challenge by seeking ways to improve the economics of future projects, for example, by undertaking research and development into lower cost development techniques. In the meantime, there have been calls for the Government to help the industry adjust to this sharp deterioration in its financial position.
We have received a number of representations from members of the oil and oil-related industries on the effects of the fall in the price of oil. These have generally recognised that the scope for the Government to attempt to ameliorate those effects through fiscal action is limited. The adjustments to the fiscal regime which we introduced in the Finance Act 1983 have resulted in an oil tax system for new fields which is even more price sensitive than the previous one. Moreover, the generous reliefs for exploration and appraisal provide a powerful incentive to companies to continue looking for new fields. It is also widely recognised that, to the extent that the fall in the oil price has rendered some projects uneconomic in pre-tax terms, fiscal change designed to make those projects attractive in post-tax terms would not be justified.
Many of the representations have, however, focused on one aspect where the Government consider that prompt action would be appropriate—the short-term effect of the fall in the oil price on North sea cash flow. The price fall has severely reduced oil companies' cash flow from their existing production. Many companies rely on internally generated funds to finance their exploration activity and development design costs. There is a danger, therefore, that cash constraints could put at risk expenditure on worthwhile North sea projects which could potentially be developed over the next few years. The new generation of North sea fields often poses difficult technical problems. A great deal of design and engineering work is required before they can even reach the development stage, but such work may be delayed if companies are unable to finance the necessary expenditure.
Any reduction in the pace and momentum of North sea development work because of cash constraints inevitably

has knock-on effects on the offshore supplies industry. We are talking, not just about profits, but about industries and jobs, particularly in Scotland but also in many parts of England.
The United Kingdom offshore supplies industry is a young industry which has only developed since the discovery of oil in the North sea. United Kingdom companies have played a major part in the development of the North sea as a major oil province, not least by their contribution to the technological advances required to exploit deep water fields. In recent years the United Kingdom supplies industry has obtained over 70 per cent. of orders for North sea related goods and services. This is an impressive achievement and, although the Government cannot, of course, hope to offset all the effects of the oil price fall, we would not wish to see these great achievements dissipated by a reduction in activity over and above what would be a logical market response to price movements. There is a danger of excessive cuts caused by cash flow difficulties.
The supplies industry comprises a variety of different sectors, and not all sectors are affected to the same degree by the oil industry's current financial difficulties. Indeed, a large amount of oil company expenditure is incurred in servicing existing fields, but it is the companies involved in the front-end activities, in the early stages of development, which will bear the brunt of any cut in oil company activity resulting from cash flow shortages.
Against that background, what we felt was needed was a measure which would operate directly on oil company cash flow, but we did not feel that it was necessary, or appropriate, to seek to bolster the cash flow of every oil company, regardless of its own resources. Our aim was to home in on those companies where the reduction in cash flow from their North sea operations could act as a real constraint on the ability to press ahead with development work. We were also very conscious of the timing element. To avoid any interruption to development activity that might be brought about by cash flow difficulties, it seemed essential that any boost to company cash flow had more or less immediate effect. With the APRT measure embodied in the Bill, we believe that we have achieved these objectives. The early repayment of APRT under its provisions will boost, on a targeted basis, oil company cash flow. It will increase by around £300 million or so the amount of cash available for investment in the North sea by oil companies benefiting from the repayments.
APRT would, of course, normally be a Finance Bill matter, but rather than wait until the next Finance Bill we have introduced this Bill at this early stage of the Session. This will enable all repayments due under the terms of the Bill to be actually in the hands of the oil companies early next year. In this way the cash will be available for their 1987 expenditure programmes.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I now explain the nature of these accelerated APRT repayments. APRT was introduced in 1982 as a means of advancing Exchequer tax take from the North sea fields which would otherwise have paid no PRT for several years because of the front-end loading of relief for development expenditure. It is paid by companies in the early part of a field's life and is then offset against PRT liabilities arising in later periods. In other words, it is in essence an advance payment of PRT. Under the provisions of the Finance Act 1983, APRT is, in any event, being phased out. The period


ending 31 December this year is the last for which APRT is payable and that at a much reduced rate of 5 per cent. compared to 20 per cent. originally.
The oil price fall means that there are a number of fields which, although they have already paid APRT, will not now pay PRT until much later than expected, if they pay PRT at all. APRT which cannot be absorbed by PRT liabilities will, under the present law, become repayable. Such repayments could not be made under the existing rules until 1988 at the earliest. In effect, this means that the Government have received a forced loan from companies at the stage when many face cash flow difficulties. That is the raison d'etre of this measure.
The Bill provides for the repayment early next year of APRT credits, up to a ceiling, due to oil companies participating in oilfields which have not yet reached their net profit or payback period. Broadly speaking, that is the period in which cumulative income from the field first exceeds cumulative expenditure. The Bill therefore directs repayments of APRT credits to companies with fields which have yet to generate any net cash flow which could be used to finance any further development.
The Bill is short and its intention straightforward, but it might be helpful if I explain its provisions in a little more detail. The provisions of clause 1 establish the criteria for early repayment to a company. These are twofold. To meet the first criterion, a company must have been a participator in the field in question at the time of the announcement of this measure. The second criterion refers to the payback position of the company in that field. Qualifying companies are those which have not reached payback in the field before 30 June this year.
By concentrating on the concept of the payback or net profit period, the Bill to a large extent builds on the existing PRT legislation. But the payback test was devised as a means of deciding whether or not certain PRT reliefs were due, and, for that purpose, the test is not operated until later in field life, by which time claims and assessments will usually have been finalised. For the purpose of this Bill, waiting until that stage would not be consistent with the basic aim of getting these repayments to the companies as early as possible, so it has been necessary to modify the operation of the payback test to meet the circumstances of fields in the early stages of production.
For that reason, the schedule adapts the existing payback test in two situations. Paragraph 3 covers the situation in which no tax assessments have been made. Fields in that position would fall outside the scope of the existing test, which is based on tax assessments. The Bill caters for that by enabling the test to be applied broadly by reference to assessable profits or allowable losses as shown in the companies' statements of tax payable. As hon. Members may know, companies have to make regular statements of the tax that is payable.
Paragraph 4 makes special provision for other fields which, although they would be adjudged to have reached payback if the existing test were to be applied on the basis of assessments made to date, have outstanding claims for expenditure which was incurred before 30 June 1986. Under the current rules the payback test would in effect be reapplied when that outstanding expenditure had been allowed. For the reasons that I have explained, this approach would not be appropriate for the purpose of this Bill since it would result in some of the repayments being made only after a considerable amount of time had

elapsed. Under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the schedule, in determining a company's eligibility for repayment, any such outstanding expenditure is taken into account at the outset.
In order to benefit from the provisions of the Bill, a company is required to make a claim for the repayment of its excess APRT for the chargeable period ending on 31 December this year. To ensure that repayment can be made as early as possible, companies are required to submit their claims on or before 28 February, that is the date by which their other returns and statements for this chargeable period are required. Special provision will be made for the Oil Taxation Office to expedite its consideration of claims. On the acceptance of its claim, a company will be repaid the amount by which its APRT credit for that period exceeds its PRT liability. Repayment is subject to a limit of £15 million per company per field.
This measure will be of proportionately more help to the small and medium-size companies. These companies tend to have fewer sources of finance than the major integrated companies which, although they have suffered a deterioration in the financial position of their upstream production activities, have benefited to some extent from an offsetting increase in their downstream, refining activities. Much of the cash will therefore go where it is likely to be of most help, which is to smaller non-integrated companies, many of which have interests in possible future developments but which have only limited access to finance. This measure will reduce the risk of those developments being delayed by cash constraints.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman said that the chief beneficiaries of the Bill will be the small companies. There are a couple of remarkable exceptions, essentially of British companies, which will not be beneficiaries under the Bill. Can he tell us about the capricious incidence of the proposals that he is bringing to the House?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be quite improper if I went into the tax affairs of individual companies. He will know that Ministers do not deal with the tax affairs of individual companies. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the effects of the Bill will be to give most of the help—I did not say all of the help—to medium-sized, independent companies. It is true that some of the—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would let me answer one question at a time. I am grateful to him for enlivening the debate, but I would prefer to deal with one issue at a time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have other questions. I did not say that none of the help would go to the major companies. It would be impossible to devise a measure of that kind. I said that most of it would go to the independent medium-sized companies, but not, of course, to all companies in that category. It has been carefully targeted to have an effect that will encourage development.

Dr. Michael Clark: When my right hon. Friend said that it would be impossible to devise a scheme to help only the small oil companies and not the big ones, I am sure that he did not mean to imply that he would wish to devise such a scheme. He surely recognises that the small oil companies invest as much as they are able to in order to develop fields, and that the large oil companies invest far more. They have bigger developments, bigger fields and bigger payrolls. Therefore, they need help just


as much as the small companies, despite the fact that they have downstream assistance from other things that they may do.

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a fair point to redress the intervention from the Opposition. The purpose of our targeting has been to give a measure of relief in a way that we think will encourage development in the near future. That is the purpose of the relief. Incidentally, we think that the main benefit has gone to medium-sized independent companies.
It is not only direct benefit to qualifying oil companies which needs to be considered. To the extent that companies use this extra cash to maintain or enhance their development programmes, benefits will flow through to the supplies industry too. In particular, expenditure on front-end activities on potential future developments will increase the chances of these projects going ahead sooner rather than later. In that way there should be a specific benefit—both in terms of extra orders and timing of such orders—to that sector of the supplies industry that is likely to be most affected by shortages of cash.
The revenue effect of advancing the repayment of APRT as provided in the Bill will be a net reduction of oil tax revenues of up to £310 million in 1986–87. The amounts repaid under the Bill would otherwise have been available to reduce any PRT liabilities arising subsequently on the same field, or become repayable to the company five years after the first payment of APRT in respect of that field was made. So the reduction in oil tax revenues this year will be fully offset by corresponding increases in oil tax revenues over the next three financial years.
The industry has welcomed the Chancellor's announcement of the measure implemented in the Bill. The repayments will, as I have described, alleviate some of the cash difficulties of the oil industry, and will provide additional funds for investment in the North sea over the coming year. With those comments, and that introduction, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bryan Gould: This short Bill is a specific response to one aspect of a large problem. The problem, as everybody knows, is that the price of North sea oil, indeed the price of oil worldwide, has been slashed by virtually two thirds. I say that it is a large problem, although the Minister and particularly his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sometimes seem to be in some doubt as to whether it is a problem. I sometimes think that for the Chancellor all economic news, provided that it arises under his jurisdiction, must be good news. We were told that the rise in the oil price was good news and would be good for the economy of this country. When the oil price fell the Chancellor, rather surprisingly, said that that, too, would be good news and that the economy would benefit.
I sometimes think that the Chancellor is in a similar position to that of a weather forecaster who always says that the weather tomorrow will be good on the simple assumption that one of these days his prediction might turn out to be true. However, the very improbability of both of the Chancellor's statements about North sea oil prices being true ought to warn us and put us on our guard about believing anything else that he says.
In truth, it is very hard to understand how a fall of two thirds in the world price of a major national asset can conceivably be anything but bad news for the economy of this country. It may be good news in the short term, in that it will stimulate trade on a world basis, and we can hope to benefit from that stimulus. However, as we are producers as well as consumers, there is an obvious down side to any small benefit, and as our major rivals will obtain virtually all of the benefit with no disadvantage, it is difficult to understand how our competitive and comparative position can conceivably have improved.
Any supposed advantage to our domestic economy through a fall in oil prices—for example, advantages to the cost of living and in economic activity—did not need to wait on the accident over North sea oil prices. They could easily have been achieved if they were desirable—and in many ways they were—by simple tax cuts. They could have been achieved by the kind of tax cuts to which the Chancellor has constantly referred for so many years, yet has never delivered.
The fall in oil prices is bad news for a range of different people. The fact that the Government have introduced this short Bill is evidence that they also recognise that simple truth. It is bad news for the large oil companies, as the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) suggested in his intervention, and no one would dispute that. However, much of the doom and despondency that has been peddled as a consequence of the fall in oil prices in terms of future operations by the major oil companies in the North sea seems to have been slightly misplaced, at least in relation to future production from existing and known capacity.
It is now generally recognised that the break-even point for major companies is as low as $5 per barrel. As long as the price holds at that rate, it makes sense to produce. The tax regime that might or might not apply to those companies is hardly relevant to their considerations and calculations.

Dr. Michael Clark: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is probably a break-even level of about $5 a barrel and, therefore, the major oil companies will continue to produce even if oil prices fall to that level. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, at that level, or just above it, the major oil companies will not be exploring for the next decade's oil or for the heat, power and motive force that will provide for the next generation? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, and I would like his comments on that.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point that I was about to make. However, I agree with and endorse the point that he made. The fall in oil prices is bad news, not just for oil companies, but for the Government.
The Government have worked themselves into the position whereby over the past two financial years they have benefited to the tune of £11 billion and £12 billion from the revenues from the North sea. This year, they will have half, if not less, if prices fall below that estimate. The Government have tended at times to make great play of the fact that they have nevertheless managed to keep the national accounts in order, notwithstanding this sudden reduction in this specific item of revenue.
We might be inclined to say that that is a less worthy and less remarkable achievement when we consider what the Government have done with North sea oil. They have treated it as a capital asset to be realised as quickly as


possible and its profits to be spent as quickly as possible. Given that that is the approach, and as the Government have discovered yet another range of capital assets that they are equally prepared to treat in that cavalier manner—the assets of the taxpayer which have been built up over many years—it is not such a miracle that the Government have hastily pushed into the breach another range of capital assets to be sold off of which British Gas is just the largest and most recent example.
The fall in oil prices bodes very badly indeed. We do not need to wait for the first evidence of that; it is felt in the balance of trade—the balance of trade to which the North sea brought a benefit of some £17 billion or £18 billion a year. That is an enormous benefit that no previous Government had ever been able to enjoy. That benefit, however, will be substantially diminished. I do not suggest that the Government have treated that with equanimity. Their calculations are that the rapid deterioration in our trade balance can be kept out of the spotlight for long enough to slip in a general election before it becomes too obvious. That is the Government's tactic for dealing with that problem.
In relation to the other point made by the hon. Member for Rochford there is no doubt that, with an oil price as low as it is—and we cannot be sure of the direction that it will take; it may remain at this level or go a little lower or higher—future exploration and development would be jeopardised for rational and commercial reasons. We are not surprised, and the Government should not he, that the North sea construction industry is badly damaged by these rather grim prospects for exploration. Howard Doris and Scott Lithgow are examples of that. Those are the problems and obvious difficulties, the short-term problems for economic activity especially in Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will address his remarks at the end of the debate.
The measure that the Minister proposes is addressed, as he rightly and frankly said, to the interests of the small companies. He attempted to suggest that, by giving them this little helping hand, that would ease the problems of the immediate prospects for exploration and development. I rather doubt that. The case for doing that has very little to do with stimulating future exploration and development on any scale that will matter and the Minister will probably concede that that is so. The real case for doing that lies on the simple ground of equity. The Minister is simply helping out the small companies that—as he rightly says—were compelled by earlier legislation to make a forced and interest-free loan to the Government who now find themselves, by virtue of changed conditions, in difficulties with their cash flow. They quite rightly believe that they can make a case based on equity that the Government should do something about returning their money rather more quickly than had been originally planned. That is the real case for the Bill.
In principle, the Opposition do not cavil with that case. However, we will want to pay a little more attention to the way in which that is included in a rather complex mechanism embodied in the Bill. We do not disagree with the idea that the help should be targeted. There is a group of small companies that ought to be beneficiaries of this form of help.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised an important point in his intervention in the Minister's speech. The

Minister was inclined to say that some of the money might go beyond that group of small British companies that have suffered particularly. However, my hon. Friend asked whether the group that will be affected by the Bill and which is to benefit through the Bill will include all those companies which truly and in fairness should qualify for that help. The Minister did not answer that question.
Some of the problems possibly arise from the operation of the pay-back requirements. I give the Minister notice now—this might be helpful as there is relatively little time before we move from Second Reading to the remaining stages—that the Opposition wish to examine that point. We believe that, by virtue of the pay-back criterion and other measures, the operation of the set of criteria is likely to be arbitrary and capricious. We are not convinced that the companies identified by the mechanism will be those that, on grounds of economic profitability, or lack of profitability, ought to be beneficiaries of the measure.
We shall raise those matters in later stages of the Bill. I revert now to the fundamental contextual point which underlies the Bill—the recognition that the fall in oil prices is bad economic news. It is not surprising that the Chancellor has at times been tempted to argue that, far from creating problems, the lower oil price is a bonus, given the mess that he made with high oil prices. High oil prices were supposed to be the economic salvation of this country. As production reached its peak and the price rose, it was expected to provide substantial revenues to the Government—not to be squandered on unemployment, as they have been, but to make room for tax cuts to stimulate the economy through lower personal taxation. Those revenues have been and have now substantially gone but the tax burden for the ordinary person has risen rather than diminished—so much for North sea oil as a means of implementing tax cuts.
We were then told that North sea oil would be a means to regenerate British industry and the economy not just through the direct economic activity arising from its production but because, as one of the very few energy rich advanced industrial countries, we should not be constrained by the high price of energy and the comparative shortage of energy reserves. North sea oil would also relieve us of the traditional balance of payments constraint which in the past, we believed, had stopped us reaching the levels of growth achieved by our competitors. North sea oil would allow us to make full use of all our domestic resources and balance our trade at the same time. That is what we were told, but we never got anywhere near that.
The Minister may be tempted to point out the marvellous surpluses that we have had in recent years as evidence that North sea oil did the trick, but a moment's reflection will tell him that that is misleading because they were nowhere near full employment economy surpluses. With full employment, the surpluses would never have arisen because North sea oil and all the benefits of the balance of trade would have been fully engaged in paying for the imports that full employment would have sucked in. We still have a balance of payments crisis looming, record borrowings and spendings from reserves, real interest rates at record levels and 4 million unemployed. North sea oil has done nothing to alter those problems.
Why did it all go wrong? The answer is as simple as the question, and it is entirely in line with the Government's other mistakes in economic policy. I believe that the


Government would now concede that their monetarist policies were all a terrible mistake. Indeed, I believe that the Chancellor may even now be contemplating paying no attention whatever to sterling M3, although it was to have been the great monthly guide to how economic policy should unfold. Just as he made simple, obvious and predictable mistakes in monetary policy, he made a naive and simple mistake as to how North sea oil and its benefits should be used for the economy. Put at its simplest, Ministers yielded to what might be described as a "lump of output" fallacy. They believed that there was a particular national output and that if a new source of wealth such as North sea oil was introduced it would inevitably displace some other element in national production. That was clearly nonsense.
The whole theory and practice with resources such as North sea oil in other countries has been that in most respects they are net additions to the national wealth, not only adding something themselves but enabling the rest of the economy to grow faster by releasing it from constraints. That has been true in Holland and especially in Norway, where manufacturing output has risen sharply and unemployment is below 2 per cent. Those examples immediately give the lie to the proposition apparently accepted by the Government for the past seven years—that high unemployment and dwindling manufacturing capacity were somehow inevitable simply because we had North sea oil.
It is worth considering the mechanism of that error. The Government assumed that a rise in the exchange rate was inevitable as a result of North sea oil and that a rising exchange rate, buoyed up by tight monetary conditions, would be of benefit to us. The consequence of that simple error, which very few people would defend today but which was very much in line with the international monetarist school that dominated the Treasury and much of Whitehall at the time, was that we were encouraged to take the benefit of North sea oil in greater purchasing power for our currency and to use that greater purchasing power to buy more goods—other people's goods, because our own could no longer be sold competitively. In other words, we took the benefit of North sea oil by sucking in vast quantities of imported manufactured consumer goods. We then had to close down our own capacity because we could not compete in the market. As a result of that, and stemming from the original simple mistake, unemployment rose and the cost of unemployment provided a natural but most undesirable home for North sea oil revenues.
That is how the unfortunate circle was squared. That is how North sea oil came to be used to pay for unemployment. Contrary to all that had been predicted, hoped for and expected—the belief that North sea oil would regenerate the economy and provide faster growth with more opportunities and more jobs—the Government, through sheer incompetence and the simplest of all economic mistakes, found that North sea oil generated unemployment and the revenues and benefits gained from it had to be used to pay for that.

Dr. Michael Clark: Having spent many years in manufacturing industry before coming to the House, I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says and I am saddened at the decline in our manufacturing base.
Does he agree, however, that the oil industry, and especially the technology developed for the North sea, has created a manufacturing sector in its own right which will stand us in very good stead in decades to come?

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right in that limited respect. Although the record of British industry is not so good as we might wish in every respect, and in the early days was not nearly so good, it has nevertheless been reasonable and in that very limited sense, for a very limited time which is unfortunately drawing rapidly to a close, the economic activity generated directly by North sea activity was extremely beneficial in a limited and localised way. But that limited benefit was far outweighed by the damage to the rest of the economy. How can it be that, in a world starved of energy resources, the possession of North sea oil in the hands of this benighted Government has turned into a dagger directed against ourselves? It is a remarkable story of incompetence which has yet to be fully told, let alone fully appreciated by the British people. It stands economic logic on its head.
A Labour Government would have used those revenues and resources to re-equip British industry. If that had meant importing, we should have imported not consumer goods to be frittered away but capital equipment to re-equip British industry and components to overcome bottlenecks. We would have ensured that that money strengthened British industry rather than weakening it to the point where we now face the same old problems but with even fewer resources and less strength.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I agreed with the hon. Gentleman's analysis until the last 60 seconds or so, and I support his party's position on this, but does he agree that some of the endemic problems now coming through in the oil industry and oil-related industry were due to the mistakes of the Labour Government in the 1960s? In the early days, when crucial decisions had to be taken, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others made wrong decisions in terms of the way in which contracts were awarded and in the handling of long-term issues affecting the strategic interests of the oil industry and British industry generally. The hon. Gentleman should not make out that all the problems stem from 1979 onwards because many of them go across party political boundaries.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks when he indicated some support for my analysis. But if he accepts my analysis, it surely follows that there is everything to be said for the measures adopted by the Labour Government to bring on North sea production quickly, to make sure there was proper accountability for the public interest and to ensure that the public interest was properly rewarded for its investment. All that is unexceptionable. The mistakes were made not through producing the resources but through what was done with them. As those resources arrived only in 1979 and then proceeded to grow rapidly—it was one of those strokes of good fortune that benefited the Government by virtue of the decisions made earlier by a Labour Government—their disposition had to be the responsibility of the Conservative party as the Government of the day. That was where the mistakes were made.
Although the Bill is worthy of support in itself, it is a sad little measure because unlike no other measure so far


it marks a recognition, even on the part of the Government, that while North sea oil will remain an important economic factor for a long time to come—we are not entitled to be pessimistic about the oil simply disappearing—it is nevertheless now clear that, at any rate for the foreseeable future, production has peaked and we are unlikely to go back to the era of very high oil prices. As a consequence, the huge opportunity that North sea oil presented to us to break out of our economic problems has now gone. It has been lost and wasted. The Bill shows that the Government recognise that.
We are now back to the old and familiar grinding problems—this time without the wonderful prospect of North sea oil on the horizon to come to our rescue. The Government have simply wasted that opportunity through incompetence, and one of the many charges that will be brought against them—on which they will be arraigned before the electorate—will be the charge of incompetence in the handling of a precious national asset.

Dr. Michael Clark: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, it is quite short, and even though he called it a sad little measure, as if it was a new wine just brought over from France, it is a Bill that we should welcome. Bad Bills may be long or short, but I am certain that, almost by definition, the best Bills are short, on the basis—to paraphrase one of our previous leaders from a long time back—that, "Sorry we have prepared you a long Bill; we did not have time to prepare you a short one."
The one thing about which I am certain is that bad Bills fill this House as hon. Members try to correct and improve them. The fact that there are so few hon. Members present for this Bill indicates that it is very good. It must be, as hon. Members are content to allow the few of us here to speak and to get the measure through as they approve it by their absence.
The advance petroleum revenue tax is inevitably involved with cash flow. It was introduced to get the maximum amount of cash out of the oil companies early on in the development of the North sea fields. Not only is APRT adverse cash flow for the oil companies, but it is preferential cash flow for the Government, who receive the money at an early stage of oilfield development.
It is strange that APRT should ever have been introduced in the way that it was, because when a major or minor oil company wants to develop a field, that is the time at which it needs a good cash flow to be able to pay for the investment. Unfortunately with APRT, the cash flow was squeezed out of those companies just at the very time when they wanted it.
By the same token, the Government will want maximum cash flow at a time when the oilfields are beginning to dry up, but APRT has meant that the Government have received their cash flow at the beginning of the development rather than at the end. I can therefore well understand why APRT has not received much acclaim from the oil companies, and I can also understand why the Government have realised that at the end of the development they may be starved of cash themselves.
APRT is based on gross revenue which is estimated at the production stage when a field is only in the minds of the geologists and explorers and when the oil is still under the sea or underground. The basis of APRT has therefore

been speculative. The Government have set a level of taxation to be paid and at the same time have said to the oil companies, "Once you have paid this you may in due course offset it against the petroleum revenue tax." That means that, although it skews the cash flow of the oil companies, it is still a fair tax in the sense that it can be offset at a later date against taxes which the oil companies would have had to pay in any event.
Advance PRT is coming to an end. We are now in the last quarter of its operation. It is therefore a dying tax, and it is wholly appropriate that we should curtail it now and bring it to a sudden death rather than allow it to dwindle on for another two years as it would otherwise have done. It would have dwindled on, not in the sense that the tax remained, because it will finish at the end of this year, but in the sense that those who had paid more than they should have paid would not have received their repayment of APRT until 1988. Although the companies would have received it in due course, the longer it took, the more their cash flow would be strangled, and, particularly at a time of low oil prices, the more difficult it would be for them to invest in further fields and to keep their business running in the way that we would all wish. The oil companies have overpaid this tax over a period of years, and at a time of difficult trading for oil companies the Government are wisely and compassionately saying, "We will now pay back the tax that you have overpaid at a time when cash flow is difficult for you."
I am sure the House realises that this debate and the Bill are primarily about cash flow. In the first instance, the tax was introduced to improve the Government's cash flow at the expense of the cash flow of the oil companies. Now, in their wisdom, the Government are allowing the boot to be put on the other foot and are allowing the cash to flow back in the other direction to assist the oil companies.
I congratulate the Government and my right hon. Friend on bringing the Bill forward. It must be a difficult measure to introduce at a time when oil prices are falling and when the Government's revenue from North sea oil is less than we would like and less than the Government and my right hon. Friend would wish. The revenue from North sea oil will be down by £1 billion this year compared with the estimate made at the time of the Budget.
At a time when revenue from North sea oil is down by £1 billion, to be able to concede the more prompt payment of the APRT is a bold, generous measure on the part of the Government. It is, of course, helped by the fact that revenue from non-oil sources is up by £2 billion. Thus, the Government have balanced their books well and are able to be flexible and responsive to circumstances as they develop. There is every indication that, despite the lower revenue from North sea oil, there will be an expected surplus for this year of around £500 million. Of course, that is not money that can be given away, because expenditure is running at £500 million over and above the figure planned at the time of the Budget.
Government expenditure is increasing because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, because non-oil revenue is up by £2 billion, there are now funds available for roads, education and the health services. That is to be welcomed.
Without a strong and good economy—the economy that we have at the present time—it would have been impossible for my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to introduce this measure this afternoon.


Therefore, on behalf of the oil companies, which, I am sure, are taking a great interest in the Bill, I am grateful for the measures that have been taken.
The Bill is prudent and wise and will have a good, positive effect on the oil industry. It will enable the oil companies to have more money available for investment. The Bill will prevent the smaller, speciality companies in Scotland and the north-east—which built up their businesses and provided employment on the basis of the North sea oilfields, their exploration and from which the companies have derived revenue—from being obliged to go to the wall. Many such companies are already in difficulties, and it would be difficult to start many of them again at a later date.
This measure will cost around £300 million in this financial year. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, which will help the cash flow of the companies. Indeed, it will help to provide employment opportunities in the hardest hit areas.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I support the measure, which is much needed and long overdue. Perhaps the Minister will recall that during the passage of the Finance Bill earlier this year I moved a specific amendment which, although not identical to the legislation introduced by the Government today, was none the less aimed in the same direction. The amendment sought to use the tax system and fiscal stimuli to encourage oil development and ameliorate some of the profound problems that we are now witnessing in the North sea oil industry and, indeed, onshore with the oil-related industries.
Although I welcome the Bill, I am concerned that perhaps it is too little too late. That sentiment may well be echoed by other Scottish Members—although I note that those Scottish Members who sing long and loud about the effects of North sea oil economics on the Scottish economy are not here this evening.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Who are those Members? Is it the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)?

Mr. Kennedy: I refer to the hon. Members representing the Scottish Nationalist party. It is a significant omission that they are not with us tonight, but not one that I wish to dwell upon.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: They are campaigning on behalf of Scottish oil.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, I take my support from wherever I can get it.
I welcome the Government's move to repay APRT in 1987, which I believe will total some £310 million. However, my welcome is somewhat grudging because it is only a first and small step towards providing the necessary conditions for encouraging oil development work.
There is no doubt that the outlook for the oil industry in Scotland is extremely gloomy. A year ago it directly employed about 90,000 people, but that figure has already fallen by about 7,000. Among many others, the Royal Bank of Scotland has recently estimated that another 11,000 jobs could go in the next three years. Indeed, that appears to be a somewhat optimistic analysis when

compared with the analysis by the Fraser of Allander Institute or, indeed, the projections of the Scottish Development Agency.
My constituency has borne painful witness to some of the massive economic problems that have been associated with the downturn of oil-related activities. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned Howard Doris, which has gone into receivership. Equally, other oil yards in the Highlands—I do not wish to dwell on this tonight, as I had the opportunity of initiating an Adjournment debate on the issue last week—are facing the prospect of rather lean order books in the months and years ahead.
The great problem in this part of Scotland is, perhaps, slightly different from that experienced by those who witnessed the recent catastrophic changes at Scott Lithgow. Those changes are devastating for the local community, for which I have much sympathy. The problem for the Highlands is that in the 1960s, under Labour and Conservative Governments, there was a prolonged effort to encourage people to move out of the central belt to repopulate the Highlands. One way of achieving that was to site major industries in the Highlands—for example, a pulp and paper mill at Fort William and an aluminium smelter at Invergordon along with all the attendant spin-offs from the oil-related industries.
What happens when things go wrong? What happens when the pulp mill closes, the smelter closes and the oil industry begins to go into a tail spin? The people of communities utterly dependent upon a certain industrial concern and its wellbeing for their wellbeing find themselves, in the words of the Prime Minister, with "no alternative". It is no good saying, "Get on your bike and go somewhere else," because there is no opportunity, least of all in the Scottish economy, to transport skills that have been built up in the Highlands and in my constituency. There is no genuine opportunity to take those skills elsewhere and try to make a go of it.

Dr. Godman: rose——

Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way in a moment.
The appalling social implication of industries closing and recession within the oil industry is mass unemployment. I do not use that term lightly, as the unemployment level is 40 per cent. in the major towns of Invergordon and Alness. The subsequent misery and lack of opportunity for young people in that part of the country do not encourage them to feel that they can have a job and a career or to market their skills. The result is the age-old problem of exodus and depopulation that has blighted the Highlands for so long. It is sad that in the frontiers of new technology, which the oil industry should have represented, that effect is now coming through.

Dr. Godman: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sincere expression of sympathy with the people of Greenock and Port Glasgow at that terrible decision. May I point out that unemployment on the lower Clyde is just as miserable an experience as it is in Ullapool? Besides the commonality of that miserable experience, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the communities are joined in the traditional Scottish response to unemployment, which is migration?

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I agree with his sentiment. Although in some ways the


social impact may be different because the two communities are different, the human effect is identical, appalling and unacceptable. I also agree that the historic consequence of pursuing the type of economic policy that the Government are pursuing is migration from Scotland. That is perhaps the saddest reflection of all.
As has been said, in welcoming the Bill we are welcoming the Government's somewhat grudging and overdue acceptance that we have got it wrong in the oil industry. Our international competitors, who must see what we have done with this one-off gift of oil reserves, must shake their heads in disbelief. As I said earlier, the Howard Doris yard at Kishorn has gone into liquidation. That is having appalling implications for unemployment and the fairly fragile economy of the Highlands.
The road infrastructure to that yard is an international joke and everything that should have been contributed to such a major industrial concern has not been contributed. The company is at the forefront of construction and engineering in the oil industry, but it has had the most massive disincentive to be competitive and to win orders and contracts. That is because it has been placed in an isolated community and has received no real Government support over the years. I am not speaking about any Government in particular. The whole institution of government has not recognised how crucial is that facility and its infrastructure. It is sad that the Government must introduce this measure largely as a result of matters outwith their control—the policies of OPEC. In some ways that is a recognition of failure and is depressing.
Although the Bill is welcome, I have mixed feelings about it. Throughout the year my colleagues and I have advocated a package of tax reforms along the lines of those which have already been submitted to the Government by various oil companies. Such a package included the immediate repayment of all APRT. It is worth putting on record that the Bill will provide for repayment, but £500 million will remain in Treasury coffers and will not he accounted for. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that the package has to do with cash flow and that £500 million will have a major impact on the cash flows of a considerable number of companies.
On top of that there should be a relaxation of the PRT ring fence principle, more support through the tax system for incremental investment in existing fields, permission to offset onshore exploration and appraisal expenditures against tax liabilities elsewhere, and improved depreciation terms. Moreover, there is a possibility of establishing a modified enterprise zone status for the North sea. All those matters should be considered, and I hope that in his March Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce developments along those lines.
The aim of the package before us tonight should be, not to line the pockets of oil companies, but, in a self-interested national context, to encourage spending on exploration and development. At current oil prices such work simply does not represent a reasonable return on investment, so this type of stimulus is sensible.
I do not want to be a Jonah, but the introduction of the measure means that the country—not any particular Government—has mishandled the opportunity presented to it by North sea oil. I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Dagenham that so much of this unforeseen bonanza for Britain has been frittered away on non-productive returns, such as paying people to do nothing,

when a little more long-term enlightened investment could have helped to cushion the economy, which is weak enough, against the downturn that we are experiencing.
In his March Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged that the Government would
introduce at the earliest opportunity any changes which may prove necessary to ensure that worthwhile projects are not frustrated by the fiscal regime."—[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 94, c.174.]
He was correct to say that, but complacent in the time that he took.
This is a welcome measure and should command all-party support and support throughout the country. It will certainly be a ray of hope to the Scottish economy, which is suffering so badly, but it should have come much earlier. The Chancellor recognised the need for it in March and I am amazed that he took so long to act on his good rhetoric.
I am reminded of the illustration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) gave when, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor sanguinely predicted a collapse in oil prices and the losses to the revenue associated with it, saying that if we could manage our affairs during such an unexpected catastrophic fall in 12 weeks, surely we could be relaxed over the fact that the oil would run out over 12 years. My right hon. Friend said that that was like a man who throws himself off the top of a skyscraper and halfway down, passing floor 12, says, "So far so good. No damage done." We are beginning to reach the end of that tumbling fall and we shall see great problems in many communities, especially in Scotland, as a result of the mismanagement of our most precious international asset.
I welcome the Bill, which is a sensible step. More needs to be done, and much of this should have been done a long time ago.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) gave a grudging welcome to the Bill, and I agree that it does not go far enough to address the problems being experienced in the oil supplies industry. I cannot agree with the Minister when he talks about generous concessions constituting a powerful incentive. I should like to see the effects of that powerful incentive, especially on the fabrication yards and on the one remaining semi-submersible rig yard, that of Scott Lithgow.
I do not oppose the Bill. It is a useful measure, especially for small firms which have suffered from cash flow problems. My major concern is about the effects that it will have, if any, on the job prospects in the offshore fabrication yards in Scotland. Unless there is a dramatic increase in activity in the offshore oil and gas fields, the massive erosion of jobs in Scottish industry will continue. We shall not see any new jobs in the offshore oilfields, except in demolition work, as is clear from the terms of the Petroleum Bill which had its Second Reading a week ago and which refers to the dismantling of oil and gas structures.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye rightly said that job losses in the industry were of the utmost importance to Scotland, given the continuing decline of much of our manufacturing industry. The Bill will not generate orders and jobs for the fabrication yards, and that is regrettable.
What is needed—I share some of the objectives outlined by the hon. Gentleman—is a judicious blend of changes in tax measures which could restore confidence, and which might even persuade companies to explore the deeper waters to the west of Scotland. Such measures might include a much more generous offsetting of the expenditure on new fields against the income from producing fields. By "new fields" I mean absolutely new fields where exploration has not yet started; for example, in the deeper waters well off the west coast of Scotland. I am not convinced that a sufficiently powerful incentive exists at present, or that the power of such incentives as exist will be enhanced by the rather short Bill before us.
In its quarterly report published on 29 May 1986 the Fraser of Allander Institute reported on its survey of the attitudes of companies employed in the industry. Regrettably, there was growing pessimism everywhere. It reported a decline in the total volume of output, and also in the number of orders and contracts. The consequences of those facts are with us now. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the Howard Doris company is in receivership. McDermotts of Arderseir is in a terrible shape. The company now has only a few hundred employees, yet four years ago it employed between 3,000 and 4,000 people. Highland Fabricators, which recently won an order for the Ida field, is now down to 1,000 employees, from 5,000 employees three and a half years ago. The yard at Methil is halfway through an order for Shell, but that yard—like the others that I have mentioned—faces a deeply worrying future.
Last week, Scott Lithgow of Port Glasgow announced that it is to dismiss about 1,500 employees. The future is bleak and intensely dismal for those who are to lose their jobs, given that the male unemployment rate in Greenock and Port Glasgow is about 26 per cent. Those redundancies—together with job losses in ancillary industries—will take that rate to well over 30 per cent. Apart from the inner areas of London, no constituency in southern England suffers such a grievous burden. As I have said, many people employed in both large and small companies will be affected by those dismissals.
Last Thursday The Scotsman reported that Scott Lithgow's
main product, floating exploration and production platforms for the perimeter of the Atlantic continental shelf, is now unlikely to be needed in any number before the next century.
That shows the dismal future of the one remaining United Kingdom yard that is capable of producing those technologically advanced vessels and structures. The correspondent in The Scotsman said that it is unlikely that there will be any more orders until the next century. As he said,
That's a very long time for the remaining 700 core workers to maintain a presence on the Lower Clyde.
It is extremely unlikely that those who have lost their jobs in the recent past, or who will lose their jobs in the near future, will find work in the service industries. They will not all open tea shops or become potters down on the lower Clyde. It is essential that Scotland maintains its manufacturing base. Some of those dismissed may, of course, be encouraged to migrate to the south-east of England, but for the overwhelming majority that simply is not the sort of option that they can consider. As I said

in an intervention earlier today, migration has been the traditional response to unemployment in Scotland. Today, that is quite unacceptable.
In its own little way, the Bill is a worthy piece of legislation, but it will not help those people at all. It will do nothing for my constituents, many of whom are highly skilled. Many are welders who have been trained to meet the exacting standards required, for example, by Norske Veritas, and for offshore oil and gas construction work.
Scott Lithgow is the one remaining company in the United Kingdom with the capability to build dynamically positioned semi-submersible exploration and development rigs. In terms of winning orders from offshore oil and gas industries elsewhere in the world, it is essential that that capability is retained, especially in the light of the demise of other first-class fabrication yards in Scotland.
Despite the Minister's words, the present tax concessions and this legislation are not a powerful incentive to exploration activity for oil companies. It is essential that that comparatively new element of Scottish manufacturing industry is encouraged to grow and is not allowed to decline. Its decline must be halted.
At present, the only new jobs likely to emerge in the offshore oil and gas industries will, as I have said, be in demolition. Some observers, including the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), have suggested that up to 100,000 new jobs may be created in that sort of highly technical and highly skilled demolition work. However, we want more than demolition jobs in Scotland. Even if those skills are employed elsewhere in offshore industries——

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most pointed remarks consistently made about the Government's attitude to the industry, and their behaviour in eventually bringing forward legislation, is that for too long they have hidden behind the false argument that there was no substantial evidence of worthwhile North sea oil projects being frustrated by the existing fiscal regime? Those hon. Members who, like myself, support the measure but feel that more should have been done do not contest that, but say that that is not the root of the difficulty. Nonetheless, further steps should have been taken a long time ago through the fiscal system to encourage more North sea oil exploration and development work.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The history of this new industry is characterised by the complacency of Ministers. It has also been damaged by the Government's failure to determine a sensible and systematic depletion policy. That has been generated by that complacency, so I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Much more needs to be done for those constituencies, whether in the Highlands or on the lower Clyde, which have been severely harmed by the decline in the number of orders coming from the offshore industry. Much more needs to be done for my constituency by the Scottish Office. That assistance must come by way of the Scottish Development Agency and the Inverclyde initiative, which has been financed by a pittance of £6 million, given the magnitude of the economic and social problems that we are experiencing on the lower Clyde. The Scottish Office's appalling blend of indifference and optimism is harming my constituents, particularly the young.
The aim of the Bill should have been to encourage much more activity in exploration, particularly in the deeper


waters, but that, as I have said, will not be brought about. There is not a powerful incentive for the oil companies to go into deeper waters, so the Bill will not address the problems faced by the supplies industry and all those who remain employed in it. Much more needs to be done. We require more radical fiscal measures and their aim must be to generate activity in exploration as well as in demolition.

Mr. Ernie Ross: We shall not oppose the Bill, but we shall seek to draw the Minster's attention, tonight and on Report, to some of the fears and concerns of those who are employed in the industry and who, perhaps, have as large an axe to grind as the United Kingdom Off-Shore Operators Association.
The Bill saw its birth in the five demands sent by UKOOA to the Chancellor. It demanded the immediate repayment of advanced petroleum revenue tax; the removal of royalties; the extension of petroleum revenue tax treatment of exploration and appraisal costs to design and engineering expenditures; a modified enterprise zone status or the relaxation of the petroleum revenue tax ring fence for a defined proportion of new development expenditure; and support for incremental investment in existing fields.
That pressure made its way into the rig builders' yards and resulted in many hon. Members on both sides of the House who happen to have a rig building yard in their constituency receiving correspondence from the United Kingdom Module Constructors Association. It in turn put pressure on its employees, whether presently employed, laid off or likely to be laid off because of the failure of offshore oil companies to order rigs.
Therefore, we have all been expecting the Government to say something, but the Bill gives us the opportunity to raise some of the concerns of people who have worked in the North sea and who are affected by the activities of the offshore oil companies. If the demands of those companies are met by a Bill, it is only right that the demands of trade union members and workers employed offshore and onshore should also be heard. I hope that we may put those on the record so that the Minister can respond.
As a direct response to such pressure and the concerns shared by the National Union of Seamen, the trade unions involved in rig building and construction and ship yards, and those employees that have been made redundant, there was a meeting in Aberdeen on 20 October 1986 which I had the opportunity to attend with other colleagues to discuss the anxieties of those working in the industry. We brought forward some demands ourselves which are just as relevant.
If the companies are to have the advantage of the return of advanced petroleum revenue tax, it is only right that the Government should start asking some fairly searching questions of those companies to ensure that Britain and its workers receive the benefit of that.
At the moment 40 per cent. of rigs in the North sea are laid off and with a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of oil and gas fields likely to be developed between 1987 and 1996 there will be even more cuts in drilling activity. To make matters worse, the United Kingdom operators, vessels, rigs and offshore workers do not have a fair share of charters and contracts. Nearly 30 per cent. of the 98 supply vessels active in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea operate under foreign flags, with Norway having the biggest share. Yet in the Norwegian sector 99

per cent. of vessels are Norwegian operated and crewed. Over 70 per cent. of the 29 drilling rigs active in the United Kingdom sector are foreign registered, but only 25 per cent. in the Norwegian sector are foreign registered. Everyone in the industry recognises that there is a desperate need for the Government's direct intervention to reserve all contracts in the United Kingdom sector for United Kingdom vessels and rigs.
It is the Minister's responsibility to tell us tonight the Government's policy towards activity in the North sea at the moment. The Government's failure to ensure a fair deal for United Kingdom supply vessels and drilling rigs is only part of their lack of a coherent policy to develop our offshore oil and gas fields. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier, the Government require the high level of oil and gas production to help to pay for the massive unemployment. If oil revenues fall without any real determination by the Government to reduce unemployment, it will be even more important that whatever work there is in the North sea is retained for the workers in British yards and for the employment of British people in the North sea.

Dr. Godman: One of the added problems for those who are made redundant in the fabrication and rig yards is that welders, who possess a skill that is of immense value in the industry, have to be tested every six months. That is fairly easy to do while they are working, but when they are unemployed it is enormously difficult for them to reach the efficiency levels that are required for such tests.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right. In "Panorama" on Monday 17 November academics and people with financial interests made the same point. Professor Alexander Kemp said:
The worry I think is that the longer the recession goes on that we're going to lose a lot of the expertise that has built up in the off-shore supplies industry and in the construction yards, and the fields which are being developed may have some difficulties in executing their projects because, you know, some companies are going bankrupt already.
That real fear is shared by a host of people who are concerned about groups of skilled workers being broken up and attracted to contracts in the middle east and elsewhere. If we start exploring in the North sea and building in British yards again, we shall not have the expertise to take advantage of such expansion.
The Government must tell us during this short debate what they will demand of the oil companies for the return of the tax and also to show us that they have a policy for the depletion of North sea oil and gas and to conserve the resources that are there.
The United Kingdom offshore industry must face the full logic of Thatcher market forces. Exploration activity dropped by one third between April and June 1986, and 40 per cent. of supply vessels and drilling rigs are idle. More than 700 redundancies have been declared among the National Union of Seamen's offshore workers. Offshore supply boat crews had to take substantial reductions in terms and conditions of employment, including a one-year pay freeze. Therefore, they have the right to demand to be mentioned in the debate. As I said earlier, and will continue to repeat, they have a right to demand that the Minister says what benefits will accrue to the workers in the yards and the workers offshore and onshore when the petroleum revenue tax is handed back.
It is clear that oil companies want a period of stable prices. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure


stability in the oil price market so that the oil companies will resume exploration. Although consumers may have benefited slightly from the sharp price drop, the nation will definitely pay dearly in the long run with an increase in unemployment and a period of reduced self-sufficiency in oil.
Unless the Government intervene, 10,000 jobs will probably go out of the industry in 1986–87 alone. The Government must say what they intend to do about our failure to fly the flag in the North sea. The rapid fall in exploration and development has given even greater urgency to the need for the United Kingdom sector to be reserved for vessels and rigs registered and crewed in the United Kingdom. For several years, the National Union of Seamen, among others, has urged the Government to intervene and to take positive steps to assist United Kingdom operators. The Government have simply castigated operators for being "uncompetitive". They should compare them with operators in other countries which give favourable credit terms and tax incentives to keep down costs. Other countries have applied pressure on their oil companies to use national flag vessels. In contrast, the free trade policy of the United Kingdom merely offers opportunities to countries which bar United Kingdom operators from their areas.
During the past 10 years, vessels and rigs from countries which reserve trade for their own flag, such as the United States, West Germany, France and Panama, have operated freely in the United Kindom sector. The result is that the United Kingdom offshore sector is the most open market in Europe, and probably the world. The Government must give some direction and impose some controls if they are to protect seafarers' and rigworkers' jobs. We do not just want to see benefits for the workers who are working offshore and on the rigs. Benefits could also come to our shipyards if there was planned development and control of our production of oil and gas. Our shipyards could, and need to, benefit from any exploration and development in that area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, shipyards face a desperate crisis. Since 1979, 32,000 jobs have been lost and a further 3,000 will go by the end of 1986, leaving a rump of about 5,000 jobs.
The Module Constructors Association, which supported offshore oil companies' demands for a return of advanced petroleum revenue tax, estimates that 33,000 people could be employed building rigs and other modules for offshore work if the right conditions prevailed. Yet the lack of Government intervention which the association highlighted has meant that, during 1986, construction yards closed and will continue to close. Requiring supply vessels and rigs to be built in United Kingdom shipyards would provide much-needed work, prevent further closures and redundancies and establish a basis for the long-term survival of the British shipbuilding industry. The survival of the British shipbuilding industry would ensure the survival of the steel industry, the marine engineering components industry and the complex electronic products industry, all of which are required on rigs and offshore platforms. That beneficial knock-on effect would go right through the economy and help every part of the country. The argument is not concerned only with Scotland. The effects of an order for a rig or a platform are felt throughout the United Kingdom.
The involvement of foreign nationals in our offshore oil and gas fields must be controlled. Controls are necessary if some of the worst anti-trade union activities are to be eliminated and the full range of expertise in offshore technology is to be maintained in the United Kingdom. If the advance petroleum revenue tax is returned to those companies, the Minister must be responsible—to those employed in the industry and those who will be employed in it—for ensuring that the anti-democratic, anti-trade union policies which are operated on some of the rigs and by some of the offshore oil companies are stopped and that normal trade union rights and conditions are enjoyed by workers in the North sea oil and gas fields.
During the meeting in Aberdeen, we accepted and supported the need for the offshore oil contractors to be given some assistance by the Government, but we also made some demands. I shall leave those with the Minister to see whether he can confirm that while he is fighting for the big boys in the industry, the offshore oil operators' conglomerates, he is also looking after the workers—the people who build the rigs, the people who are employed on them and the people who give us the oil from the North sea. We want co-operation at international level to achieve stable oil prices. We want a plan for exploration and development to ensure long-term self-sufficiency in oil and reduced imports of gas. We want to reserve the United Kingdom sector for supply vessels and rigs registered and crewed in the United Kingdom. Future supply vessels and rigs operating in the United Kingdom sector should be built in United Kingdom shipyards, thereby providing employment. We want to develop expertise and ensure high standards of employment by requiring work permits for non-European Community nationals.
If the Minister answers those questions, the Bill will be welcomed in those areas of the country where the debate is being observed.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I should declare an interest. Since long before I came to the House I have had a connection with Chevron Petroleum. I was interested to learn about the provisions of the Bill because the company welcomes it enormously. The company has made what the Minister described as a "forced loan" to the Government on the Hutton field and looks forward with pleasure to getting that loan back since the change in the oil price means that it is unlikely to pay petroleum revenue tax on that field or, if it does, the payment will be postponed for a considerable time. The return of that forced loan will be very welcome.
It is fair to say that the hope that development work will be saved by the Bill is well worth expressing. Undoubtedly, that will be the case. There is no doubt that Chevron Petroleum is busily engaged in enhancing its development work in the Ninian field. The repayment of the advance petroleum revenue tax will undoubtedly assist in that. It may even assist the company to bring forward new projects, although I doubt whether that will happen immediately.
It is important to consider the oil price as something which is not just a temporary aberration. It may prove to be much closer to the realistic long-term price of oil than the very high rates that have been in place since the first OPEC hike. Recently, some Members in the House and in another place attended a presentation on oil prices. The


message seemed to be fairly clear that the oil price is much closer now to what has been the norm than what we have experienced during the past 10 years.
If that is the case, everyone will have to adjust to it. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) imply that the Government should create conditions in which the international price of oil should not be wholly effective in Britain. We must remember that there is a glut of oil on the international market, that there is likely to be a glut for some considerable time and that, in those conditions, no Government—certainly not the Government of a country the size of Britain—could conceivably stand against the international tide.
In those circumstances, it was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that one group of workers had accepted a pay freeze. Everyone must consider how he adjusts his behaviour towards this long-term problem. There is little doubt that, historically, adjusting one's expectations downwards is harder in unionised activities than it is in non-unionised activities. I welcome the assurance of the hon. Member for Dundee, West that the trade unions will engage in negotiations on the matter, but I am not altogether surprised that some oil companies have done their best to keep trade union activity to a minimum. Only in that way can they remain competitive.
Competition is the key in this area. Every company in Britain which is not British-based, and even many British national companies, are weighing up whether they can get a better deal in the North sea than they can elsewhere. The companies consider many factors, not least political stability, which Britain can offer. Let us hope that it long remains so. The competition for money is international and when even the largest of oil companies is considering whether to develop further in the North sea or to take its money somewhere else, such as Indonesia, the United Kingdom must compete.
That is why taxation is enormously important. One need only consider, at the downstream end, the price of a gallon or a litre of petrol to see the enormous proportion that is represented by tax. The position is similar at all stages in the exploration, development, production and sale of oil products. The Government must be extremely careful in handling the oil companies, which, it is clear, greatly welcome the Bill, and nothing that I say should demean that welcome. But tomorrow will be the first sitting of a Standing Committee to examine the Petroleum Bill. There is great anxiety among many oil companies that the Bill, as drafted, will cast a shadow over the balance sheets even of the largest companies. If the Government can pursue each company to recover the cost of demolishing or removing the structures in a field that has come to the end of its useful life, it will become a contingent liability on the balance sheet, which will cause several companies to look at it askance.

Dr. Godman: Given the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this area, can he tell me the position of American companies on the abandonment of rigs and structures? I am given to understand that the Department of the Interior insists that the seabed be restored to its original condition.

Mr. Rowe: I have no experience in the United States. Chevron Petroleum is anxious for the establishment of a sinking, fund to pay for the costs of demolition or removal of structures in the North sea. It believes that it would be

entirely appropriate—my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary may wish to say something about this when he replies—for the Government to grant a tax concession or deferment on money put into such a fund. Indeed, Chevron suggests that the fund should be constructed by the purchase of Government bonds and that it should be built up with no liability to tax. If the fund grows too large for the demolition or removal of the structures in any field, tax should be paid on the balance.
The result would be that the Government would have the money in their hands from day one and could then defer tax until they knew the price of removal. The advantage is that it would then be possible for the operator to ensure that the money was paid into the sinking fund while the oil was flowing. That would give the company the right to insist on the fund being built up, even by the smallest participants. If not, they would not receive their share of oil royalties. That would be a vastly more satisfactory solution than the one provided in the Petroleum Bill. I was relieved to hear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy is willing to consider alternative proposals, but it is the 11th hour. I hope that the oil companies, the Department of Energy and the Treasury can get together to achieve a more satisfactory solution.
To return to my basic point, in an internationally competitive market, anything that casts a major shadow over the balance sheets of companies, large or small, is undoubtedly a disincentive to undertake further development work.
I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the Treasury team for their efforts to resolve several difficult tax problems, not least the Californian tax problem, which is only half resolved. I say good luck to them and I hope that the matter can be resolved sensibly. I am nothing like as gloomy about the long-term prospects for North sea oil as are many right hon. and hon. Members. I believe that much more oil remains to be discovered. The trick is to provide a tax regime that encourages companies to look for it. In its modest way, the Bill plays a useful part in that.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that the trick is to get the tax regime right to encourage exploration and to find out whether his hunch about North sea oil reserves is justified. The Opposition are gently cynical about whether that trick has been performed on this occasion. However, that will not surprise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
It has been a very quiet, introspective and almost retrospective debate. There has been much contemplation and analysis of past mistakes and of the lost opportunities that litter the last decade's North sea oil policy. However, that should not hide from the House or from any other interested party the seriousness with which the Opposition view the crisis and the serious impact of the present decline in oil prices on the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole and upon Scotland in particular. I cannot endorse what I hope was the deliberately naive assumption of the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that the apathy towards this debate, shown by the attendance of hon. Members, even on the Government Benches, is a vote of confidence in the adequacy of the Government's reaction to the crisis, as embodied in the Bill.
It is a modest Bill. The revenue forgone, amounting to £310 million, is substantial by my standards, but compared with the reduced take from oil companies and petroleum revenue tax, it is a comparatively small sum. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Rochford who described the Bill as a bold and generous measure. If that is the limit of his ambition, it suggests that he moves cautiously in a closed and restricted world.
The Opposition do not object to the measure. We give it a somewhat limited welcome. However, our worry is that it will not deal with the crisis and that it will not coax the oil companies to increase production. Production will continue; the investment has been made and one needs only a very low price for oil to justify continuation of a production run. However, I doubt whether the Bill will encourage any form of exploration, or the introduction of new projects.
I do not pretend to have the personal experience of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent. He struck an optimistic note towards the end of his speech. However, when he referred to the company with which he was connected, Chevron, he said that, although it welcomed the concession and thought that it would benefit to some extent from the repayment of advance petroleum revenue tax, it was not sure that this would lead to new projects in the immediate future. That is the test that many people will want to apply to this measure. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's cautious approach, although his general attitude towards the Government's efforts was fairly loyal, may, sadly, be justified.
I am conscious that I am not one of my party's specialists in this area. I do not lay the entire blame or a significant amount of the blame for the drop in the price of oil at the Government's door. It may have been sensible to discuss more positive international measures to try to control the price of oil, but this disaster would have befallen any Government. The question is what should be done about it, how the Government should react and with what sense of urgency. It can be argued that a fall in the price of oil stimulates world trade. If there is to be an expansion of world trade we hope—although we have been unsuccessful so far—to get our share of it. Lower fuel costs also help industry. I do not belittle or deny those facts. However, the problem is that exactly the same competitive advantages are enjoyed by the industrial might of West Germany, France and Japan. I am not sure that we shall do particularly well out of it.
Everybody regards the oilfields in the North sea with considerable ambivalence. I am occasionally tempted by the case for a depletion policy. I have pointed on previous occasions to the extraordinary folly of flogging as much as we can possibly get out of the ground at the disastrous bottom end of the market. That does not make a great deal of sense. At the same time, I have urged the Government to take measures to encourage further exploration, with a view to maintaining a flat-out production policy. I accept that there are difficulties and contradictions. However the balance is struck, the present policy has undoubtedly created enormous difficulties for Scotland and for the Scottish economy, and I intend to spend a few minutes dealing with them.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) has a direct constituency interest in these difficulties. He referred to the recent Royal Bank of

Scotland projections for the likely course of events between 1986 and 1988. The Royal Bank of Scotland adopted a much more down market and depressed scenario about production levels in the North sea and about the level of oil prices that would condition production levels. It produced the now famous bracket of a possible total loss to the Scottish economy of between 22,000 and 33,000 jobs in that two-year period. A substantial multiplier was built into that bracket. However, in terms of direct job losses it referred to a minimum loss of about 12,000 jobs.
A very substantial number of job losses has already taken place. Even in Grampian, which was directly linked and strongly connected with the oil boom and where unemployment historically has been low, in Scottish terms, we are beginning to see a marked deterioration in unemployment, which is a justifiable cause for concern. According to the latest unemployment figures, unemployment in Grampian has reached 10 per cent. Over 22,000 people are standing in the dole queues, and in other different and contrasting areas of Scotland the impact has been serious.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye has an unemployment rate of 21·7 per cent. in his constituency. There are a large number of travel-to-work areas—for example, Invergordon and Dingwall—where the impact of the rundown in the North sea will build a damaging new factor into an already desperate and depressing problem. Howard Doris at Kishorn is in receivership. McDermotts at Ardersier is limping along. If it had not been for the fact that they got some work from the Conoco jackets, which was the result of a misfortune at Wallsend, they would have been in a difficult position. None of us takes pleasure in that kind of knock-on effect.
The impact of the rundown in North sea oil will be severe in the rural areas, especially in the Highlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) rightly returned to a point that I know is not far from his mind: the problems facing the Scott Lithgow yard. I remember the battles of yesteryear when the yard left British Shipbuilders. However, that is all in the past. The tragic present is the loss of 1,500 jobs and the uncertain future that faces the core of 700 men left in the yard. The problem that faces the lower Clyde is just as important and just as difficult to handle as the problems in the northern part of Scotland to which I referred earlier. It is common ground that the rundown in North sea oil will have a dangerous impact and that it will probably become considerably worse, if present projections are accurate.
I recognise that there are no simple answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) also has North sea interests in his constituency, in Kestrel Marine and Dundee, but I think that he would accept that we cannot isolate ourselves completely from the impact of the fall in oil prices. It would be silly, and perhaps dishonest, to pretend otherwise. However, we are entitled to say that this modest measure should not be seen as the Government's last word. The Government must keep an eye on how the situation develops. We should like to see an across-the-board approach from the Government.
With drilling rigs parked in several firths, such as the Cromarty firth and the Firth of Forth, and with daily rates literally plummeting, things will not be easy. However, I hope that some thought will be given to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. I do not


suggest that everything that happens in other sectors of the North sea is good while everything that we do is bad, but there is a case for looking hard, say, at the use of supply ships and at the implications for employment in our areas.
I hope that the Government are prepared to fight hard over shipbuilding, for example, where key negotiations are going on in the Common Market over the intervention fund. The Minister may not be the relevant person, but I ask him to suggest that his colleagues read the application by the Department of Trade and Industry to the European regional development fund. It includes a substantial number of important infrastructure developments that might go ahead in areas that will be particularly hard hit by the rundown or depression in the oil industry. I think, in particular, of Easter Ross and similar areas.
I shall not abuse the patience of the House or, more importantly, your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by reading out quotations or by reminding the House of the many infrastructure projects that were given priority, and which all seem likely to be left on the shelf if present policies continue. Things will not be easy. The Minister noted the marked effect of the fall in the oil price on economic activity, but he then congratulated himself and his colleagues on the fiscal arrangements that he said gave a powerful incentive to exploration. That smacks of complacency, and I am not convinced that—to use the phraseology of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—the trick has been worked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he feared that in some ways the results of this measure would be arbitrary and capricious. We may want to pursue on Thursday some of the arguments about who is excluded and included, and about exactly how these expedited repayments of interest-free loans will work out. But the most important thing is to underline that, if the Bill is valuable, it is because it is an attempt to help by targeting those areas where help is needed and where there may be some reaction.
I do not know whether the Bill will be successful, but I agree with the principle that when faced with a crisis, one does not just sit back and watch it happen, adopt a laissez-faire approach, or allow events to gain a momentum of their own. Governments have a duty to think about employment, the quality of life and the future of communities at risk. If this small but, I hope, useful adjustment to the tax and fiscal regime is successful, all well and good, but it will not be enough on its own.
I hope that the Government will adopt a much more courageous and far-reaching approach towards the economic problems in the areas hit by the present recession. Opposition Members will remember that in the late 1970s we had problems in the construction yards on the upper Clyde. The Minister will recall the problem of the Marathon yard. I was not in a position to watch the battle closely, but I could hear the noises. The outcome was that an order was placed on a speculative basis. Ultimately the rig built was sold and the yard, now UIE, is still competing and perhaps at risk, as all companies are in this industry. However, it also still employs men in an area where the unemployment problem is particularly difficult.
Thus there are examples that one could draw on from the past, and I hope that the Government are prepared to adopt a much more sensible, flexible and pragmatic approach than they have so far. The Bill may help on the margin. It is supposed to be targeted at achieving an effect.
If it is not successful, I hope that Ministers will return to the House, and that the same principle will be applied more widely. Otherwise, the consequences for Scotland will be very serious indeed.

Mr. Norman Lamont: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, this has been a quiet debate, although it has been marked by concern about the effects of the fall in the oil price on industry and unemployment in the Highlands and in the Clyde area. This is not the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) describe the position in his constituency. As he will acknowledge, I am extremely familiar with it, alas, through my previous involvement with the affairs of Scott Lithgow. I know that what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituency and the employment situation there carries a lot of weight and is all too depressingly true. The Government share that concern about the economic consequences of the fall in the oil price for employment in those areas, along with its effect on the oil supplies industry and the oil companies, and that is why we have introduced the Bill. We did not first adopt a laissez-faire approach. We recognised that action was demanded.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made a slightly predictable speech. With great respect to him, I must say that he gave us a bit of a lecture on the role of North sea oil in the economy and did not say much about the Bill. I make no great complaint about that, although one could take issue with some of his points.
The hon. Gentleman debated at some length the pros and cons of a high oil price versus a low one. He sought to draw on different remarks that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made about the oil price at different times. He implied that my right hon. Friend had said that when the oil price was high it was good news, and that when it was low it was also good news. I am not sure that it is always such a bad thing to be of an optimistic predisposition. However, there is no great confusion about it. Different prices have different effects on various groups of people. Obviously high prices are good for Government revenue, while low prices are good for consumers and world trade, although perhaps less good from a Government's point of view.
If we had not had the very careful stewardship of our finances that we have had for the past few years, we would not have found it easy to cope with the halving of the price of oil within such a short time. The hon. Member for Dagenham seemed to dislike us making that point, but we do so strongly because it is true and quite justified. This country rode out the effects of a halving in the oil price because of the very careful policy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pursued over the years.
The hon. Member for Dagenham also repeated accusations that the windfall of North sea oil had been wasted. We strongly reject that accusation. Thanks to North sea oil public expenditure is higher than we could otherwise have afforded, and borrowing is lower than would otherwise have been the case. It has provided us also with the opportunity to build up a substantial portfolio of assets overseas that will be of benefit to Britain for many years to come.
The hon. Member for Dagenham blamed the rise in unemployment since 1979 entirely on the effect of oil on the exchange rate, thus leaving some mystery as to how unemployment had doubled in certain other European countries which do not have the benefit of being oil producers. The hon. Gentleman talked at some length about tax cuts and said that they had not been delivered and now never would be. I cannot comment on his second assertion, but, whatever the arguments on either side of the Chamber, it is clear that if we had had the public expenditure policies implemented by Opposition Members, tax rates would be much higher than they are now. There can be no argument about that.
The comments from the Opposition Benches show that there is a certain unease—Opposition Members seemed to be switching from one foot to another—over depletion policy. I think that the hon. Member for Garscadden acknowledged that unease in his reply. If the action which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow was pressing on us had been followed and implemented, I am not sure that that would have been conducive to building up the confidence of the oil companies or conducive to a high level of exploration.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said that he approached the Bill with mixed feelings. With great respect to him—I always enjoy listening to his speeches—his mixed feelings might arise from his slightly mixed up arguments. He seemed to think that by introducing the Bill the Government were confessing that they had it all wrong. I do not think that that argument can seriously be maintained. The tax regime that is appropriate at a price of $30 a barrel is different from that which should apply when the price is $14. We have a regime that is price sensitive, and through the refunding of APRT we are introducing measures that will be targeted on companies that are likely to carry forward development. These will be companies that will be able to carry out a greater amount of exploration as a result of the resources that will be transferred back to the North sea and to the oil companies as a result of this measure.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is aware that there has been some scepticism among Opposition Members about the impact of this measure on exploration, the bringing on stream of new developments and the pushing into marginal areas of work in the North sea. Does the Minister expect to see an upturn in that sort of activity as a result of the Bill?

Mr. Lamont: I think that that would be looking into the crystal ball. The hon. Gentleman would be amazed if I attempted to answer his question and to make any firm predictions. The feature of the Bill that has been missed in the response from Opposition Members is that it is targeted on companies that are involved in fields that have not yet reached payback. By definition, that is the positioning

which a cash shortage is a constraint and is likely to inhibit development expenditure. That is what we mean by the Bill being targeted, and that is why we think that it will ultimately have an effect upon exploration and development. Certainly those activities will be at a higher level as a result of the Bill.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Rochford (Dr. Clarke) for talking in positive terms about the Bill. The welcome that it has received from Opposition Members has been extraordinarily grudging. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said, predictably, that it was too little and too late, but I am sure that any action we took would always be described as too little. Even the hon. Member for Garscadden had to acknowledge that something that puts back into the North sea companies £310 million is a substantial measure by anyone's standards.
As I have said, the Bill is targeted very much at the fields that have not yet reached payback. We estimate that 75 per cent. of the benefit will go to the medium-sized and smaller companies, and we hope, therefore, that these companies will be able to proceed with development and more exploration.
It has been said that the benefits will not be confined to United Kingdom companies. We say that it would be wrong in principle to seek to discriminate between United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom companies. Some leading companies in the North sea have been non-United Kingdom companies. It is extremely important that we should not discriminate in the tax system between United Kingdom companies and foreign-owned companies in the North sea. The non-United Kingdom companies that have played a leading part in the development of the North sea are entitled to the same treatment in respect of APRT as United Kingdom companies that are operating in the area. I am sure that on reflection hon. Members will agree with that principle.
We look forward to hearing further in Committee what the Opposition have to say about the targeting of this measure. For the reasons that I have explained, we think that it is targeted in a way that will bring forward some development and ensure the continuation of other developments. We recognise fully what has been said by Opposition Members about their concern over what is happening in parts of Scotland or in their constituencies. We believe that this is a useful measure, and I am only sorry that Opposition Members have not given it a more generous welcome, but have been slightly grudging. We believe that the Bill will be welcomed by the industry and will be of practical use. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I inform the House that the Examiners have now reported on the Bill and are satisfied that the Standing Orders have been complied with. It is therefore in order for the Second Reading to proceed. Mr. Speaker has selected the Instruction in the names of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann).

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
With the permission of the House, it might be convenient to debate the Instruction in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) with the Bill's Second Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to take that course? The Minister has leave.

Mr. Waldegrave: For their part, the Government are minded to advise the House to accept the Instruction.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a new statutory authority to develop, manage and conserve the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. The landscape of the Broads is largely manmade and is unique. The Broads cover an area of about 111 square miles in the valleys of the Rivers Bure, Ant. Thurne and Yare in Norfolk and the Waveney on the Norfolk-Suffolk border. There are navigable waterways, open broads, reed, fen and carr woodlands, reclaimed grazing marshlands and some cultivated land. There are 42 broads covering slightly less than 2,000 acres and 124 miles of navigable, lock-free waterways. The true Broads were formed by peat-digging in medieval times. A rise in the sea level during the 13th century led to the general flooding of the excavated pits.
31The waterways of the Broads attract many thousands of visitors from all over Britain and abroad. There are now more than 12,000 hire and private boats on the Broads and over 250,000 people visit or holiday in the area each year. This brings great benefits to the local economy, but it is obvious that it must bring pressures and problems too.
Visitors who have been coming to the area, as many have for 25 years or more, confirm the indisputable fact that there has been a decline in that period in the natural beauty and scientific interest of the Broads. This has resulted from the cumulative effect of a set of complex and interrelated factors. They include water pollution and eutrophication, a loss of riverside reed beds and other fringing vegetation, particularly on the northern rivers, which has exposed banks to erosion from the washes and mooring of the increased number of boats. In addition, the conversion of marshland to arable land has led to the loss of some of the characteristic features of the broadland landscape.
The problem has been to find effective solutions when so wide a range of local, regional and central Government agencies are involved. The matter has been argued over for 40 years. Some suggest that a national park designation would provide the solution, but there were counter

arguments. In 1945 John Dower, for example, a great man and chairman of the committee of inquiry into national parks in England and Wales, noted:
There are many complications both of drainage and navigation…and of existing misuses and disfigurements, and the requirements differ materially from those of a regular National Park. It may prove better to deal with the area by some ad hoc scheme of combined national and local action.
On the other hand, the 1947 Hobhouse report—another great name—did not accept those reservations and recommended the creation of a Broads national park. That recommendation was not accepted by the Government of the day.
In 1965 the NCC published its "Report on Broadland", reaffirming the importance and the problems of the area. It called for a strategic approach to the problems. In response to this report, the Broadland Consortium was formed to bring together the local planning, river, and navigation authorities. In 1971 the consortium published the "Broadland Study and Plan". Although it raised the possibility of a new authority with
overall resonsibility for administering the affairs of the area",
the final recommendation adopted by the consortium on this subject was that the river authority should assume navigation powers over the rivers and Broads. The plan was adopted by the local planning authorities as the basis for development control, but its organisational recommendations were overtaken by local government reorganisation in 1974.
In 1976 the Countryside Commission reopened the question of the future management of the Broads by raising again the possibility of designation as a national park. Out of these discussions came the proposal from the local authorities in the area, particularly the district councils, for the establishment of the present voluntary local government-based, non-statutory Broads Authority.
This was established in 1978 as a joint committee under sections 101 and 102 of the Local Government Act 1972. It consists of nominated members of the two relevant county councils and six relevant district councils, with representatives from the water authority, Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners, and the Countryside Commission, which latter body has supported also the authority with grant-aid for staff and administrative costs and some project work. This voluntary authority has done good work and I pay tribute to its members and officers, and to the local authorities involved.
None the less, when, in 1983, the Countryside Commission carried out a consultation exercise on the future arrangements for managing the Broads, it found that the ecology had continued to deteriorate. In March 1984, the commission published its conclusions that a special statutory authority should be established for the area with powers to manage both land and water. The new authority it proposed should, it said, not only take over the functions of the existing Broads Authority, but also assume the navigation functions of the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners over most of the Broads rivers system. The commission saw it as critical to transfer the navigation to the new authority to enable it to exercise integrated management and control over the rivers, broads and associated land areas. Many of the problems and opportunities in the Broads area occur where land and water meet. The commission considered that divided responsibility would not permit these problems to be tackled effectively.
That was the genesis of the attempted private Bill, the principles of which the Government endorsed, which all the relevant local authorities agreed jointly to promote. Norfolk county council took the lead, and I authorised the Countryside Commission to grant-aid the cost of the Bill's preparation. There was then extensive public consultation during 1985, and by last November the local authorities were ready to introduce their Bill. They were then advised by the House authorities that it was unsuitable for introduction as a private measure. Therefore, we were all back at square one.
The Government regretted that outcome and remained convinced of the urgent need for a statutory authority of the kind proposed by the private Bill. The voluntary authority was showing signs of breaking up. In any case, it did not have the powers that it needed, since it had only what the local authorities could delegate to it. The funding was increasingly ad hoc. We agreed with all those who, since 1947, saw the need for a durable statutory basis for the management of the Broads if the continuing deterioration in the ecology of the area was to be halted and reversed. We therefore adopted the principles of Norfolk's Bill and promised to introduce our own. I apologise to the House for this long preface, but it is how we have arrived at where we are, and that is why the process has been so prolonged.
The private Bill proved to need substantial recasting to make it suitable for introduction in a form more appropriate to public legislation. Therefore, the format and structure of our Bill is different from that of the private Bill—it is, for example, much shorter with 26 clauses instead of 112 and under 50 pages instead of 80—but its substance is not radically different from that of the private Bill.
Our approach has been to establish the new authority as far as possible on the general local authority model, with the appropriate general powers and responsibilities. We have had particularly in mind the powers and duties of national park authorities, adapted as necessary to suit the special characteristics of the Broads. In particular, we have looked closely at the navigation provisions. Norfolk did not achieve consensus on this with the various interests. We have worked hard to ensure that there are proper safeguards for seagoing freight shipping on what we have described as the Norwich navigation—that is, the rivers Yare and Wensum up to the port of Norwich—which is still important for commercial cargo vessels. We have also made adjustments to the proposed membership to ensure that, on the one hand, boating interests are properly respresented, while, on the other, we have provided for one member to be appointed by the Nature Conservancy Council. These and other changes that we have made have been designed to improve the Bill in response to legitimate criticisms of detailed aspects.
Given the need to introduce legislation as soon as possible to enable the authority to assume its functions on 1 April 1988, subject to Parliament's approval of the Bill, we have not had enough time to conduct a second formal consultation about the Bill's proposals in addition to that which Norfolk conducted on its Bill. In any case, as I have said, our revised Bill is closely modelled on its predecessor. Furthermore, a number of bodies and individuals have made representations to us about the possible content of the Bill. Their points have been carefully considered and

many have been reflected in drafting our Bill. Moreover, since our Bill could be examined by a Select committee, in addition to the normal Standing Committee procedure, there will be ample opportunity for those interested to make their views known. We shall be ready to discuss and explain our proposals and to consider suggestions for further detailed improvement.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The Bill is a splendid example of my hon. Friend's interest in the countryside, and we welcome it. However, there is one grave concern—that conservation interests have not been considered sufficiently and that too much regard has been paid to landscape and boating. Unless we have regard for the conservation of habitats, we shall lose much of the interest of the Broads. My hon. Friend has said that during the passage of the Bill he will listen to the views of all interests. Will he do so in relation to representations made by specific conservation bodies?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. The heart and origin of the Bill is to conserve the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads for ever for those who wish to enjoy them. The Bill will not achieve its purpose if it does not secure conservation in proper form. The Instruction proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells)—the Instruction tabled by the hon. Member for Newham South (Mr. Spearing) was not accepted—advises us that it is possible to satisfy those conservation interests and, at the same time, meet the legitimate interest of boat owners. In the end, those interests must be the same. Boat owners go to that area—many of them go there faithfully year after year—because of its unique nature. They and responsible boat organisations recognise that it is in their interests that the Norfolk Broads should be properly conserved. I take my hon. Friend's point. If there are further measures to discuss, we shall have time to do that in Committee.
I have said that we shall listen to the detailed recommendations, so I shall put on record one point on which the Government stand firm. We need a properly integrated authority to manage the waterways and the land together. That must be the principle on which we all stand.
I shall refer briefly to the Bill's main provision. Part I sets up the new authority and gives it its functions. Clause 2 sets out the vital balance between the interests of navigation, conservation and enjoyment by the public. All three are, in their own way, equally important and the authority is required to have regard to all three aspects in discharging its functions.
Part II provides for the authority to take over from the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners their navigation functions over most of the Broads rivers system. It requires the authority to set up a navigation committee which it must consult before exercising its specific navigation functions. It also requires the authority to maintain and develop the navigation area for navigation generally, to take special steps to safeguard the interests of sea going freight shipping in the Norwich navigation area and to appoint navigation officers to discharge certain navigation functions.
Part III deals with the financial arrangements for the authority. It empowers the authority to make charges for navigation and to levy on the eight local authorities to meet the balance of its expenditure not met by grant. It


also empowers the Secretary of State to pay grant to the authority. We intend that grant should be paid at the same rate—currently 75 per cent.—as is payable to national parks. I see no reason why the total expenditure of the new authority should differ greatly from what it would have been if the old voluntary authority had continued. Expenditure was set to increase somewhat under the old voluntary authority and I have no doubt that it will do so under the new authority. I do not see why the path of increase should change much.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the size of the proposed authority, at 35 members, is too big and that it is too unwieldy and expensive? Is my hon. Friend rigid about that figure, or will there be some give and take as to size?

Mr. Waldegrave: I share my hon. Friend's bias that an authority of this size is much bigger than one would have liked. I have used a pocket calculator in a number of ways, but have found it impossible to imagine a smaller authority on which all the differing interests are properly represented. We have kept the authority at this size partly to demonstrate to the boat owners and other interests, some of which are not mentioned in the Bill—such as anglers—that there is room to represent them. I should like the authority to be smaller, but every time I try to make it smaller the balance is upset and some vital interest is left out. Although it is likely that there will be an executive sub-committee or similar body to carry forward the management of the authority's affairs, I hope that the Select Committee and the Standing Committee will come to our conclusion that it is difficult to represent everyone on a much smaller body. I must point out that I started with exactly the same bias as my hon. Friend.
Returning to the financial arrangements, the main difference is that, as we are now recognising the national importance of the Broads, it is right that the funds for the authority, which will not increase dramatically above what they would otherwise have been, should come more from the central taxpayer and less from the local taxpayer. That seems to be a fair balance. Many of the welcome visitors to the area come from other parts of the country. One of the Bill's overall purposes is to say that, as with the national parks, central Government back their words with money. We say that we shall put in 75 per cent. of the grant rather than one third, as has been the case in recent years under the voluntary authority. Normal local authority controls will apply to the authority's borrowing.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the new authority will cost no more than the present one?

Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot give that assurance. It will be a matter for the local authority, balancing the interests of ratepayers. Future Secretaries of State will face the same pressures for grant. I think that the new authority's expenditure will be about the same as the expenditure planned by the voluntary authority, which has increased from about £700,000 a year to £900,000 or £1 million a year. I see no reason why there should be any increase in the overhead expenditure as opposed to the project expenditure on necessary items. Most of the people now involved in doing the work under the voluntary authority will work for the united statutory authority.
Part IV contains provisions for the necessary transfers of staff and property. The present authority has an office

in Norwich, which I think it will retain, and does a lot of the work by using people who work for the local authorities, and I think that that will continue. Some staff will have to be transferred to the new authority. Depending on the exact negotiations on navigation with the Yarmouth port and haven commissioners, some staff are likely to be needed, but I see no reason for a large net increase in staff compared with present numbers. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) to some extent.
The Bill recognises the Broads' national importance and special needs. It gives them a status equivalent to that of a national park, but with wider powers. It reflects and respects the interests of boat users and commercial shippers, and that is why I see no difficulty in accepting the Instruction proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. The Bill balances those interests with the overriding need to maintain and conserve for ever the Norfolk Broads for the enjoyment not only of boat owners, but others, such as anglers and bird watchers, who want to continue to enjoy the area and to conserve and maintain its distinctive and unique character. We believe that the combination of powers, duties and a firm financial base for the new authority provided in our Bill should provide the means whereby the future of the Broads can be secured for ever.
Next year sees the beginning of the European Year of the Environment. There are few more positive offerings that this Parliament could make to that year than to secure the passage of a Bill providing permanent protection for the Broads. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. David Clark: I think that few hon. Members would disagree with the words of the Hobhouse committee as far back as 1947 when, discussing the Broads, it said:
Here is a potential national park which seems to belong to another world, so widely does it differ from the mountains and wild moorlands of the North and west, or the rolling contours of the South Downs. Slow rivers creep between its fields and fens. Wide, shallow meres—the Broads themselves—lie along their courses, their edges merging into reedbeds or waterlogged alder carrs.
We all recognise not only those sentiments but the fact that the environment has been threatened since 1947. Unless we act quickly, there will be further damage to that unique landscape. We recognise that as a House because we have designated 16 sites of special scientific interest and three national nature reserves and other sites have already been identified as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the need to protect that environment.
In principle, we readily support the Bill's concept, but we have a number of reservations. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would be open at a later stage to alternative ideas and proposals which may have a sound basis. The Labour party has a double interest in welcoming the Bill. The Bill is not only right but, perhaps more importantly, it reflects straight Labour party policy, unanimously approved by our last party conference. If we can help to improve the quality of life in Britain by bringing in a bit of sensible Socialist policy, in the midst of this sea of depression caused by the Government, we shall obviously be pleased.
As the House knows we have generally been supportive of the Government in any proposals to try to promote measures that might improve our environment. This Bill is no exception. The Bill's aims and objectives are welcome and we shall do all that we can to try to improve the Bill where we think that it is lacking.
I was interested to hear that the Minister sees this as his testament to the European Year of the Environment. I welcome his conversion. However, I wish that he had gone a little further and perhaps brought some other Bills before us. I do not know why he did not bring in a commons Bill. Such a step is already agreed by amenity bodies such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. Indeed, the commons are referred to in the schedule of the Bill. We doubt the Government's absolute and real commitment to conservation and environment. There are certain aspects of the Bill that reinforce our doubts. However, basically we are supportive of the Government. Obviously, there are parts of the Bill with which we are not satisfied, but we support the Government in the general aim and give the Bill a guarded welcome.
We believe that the Bill, as the Minister said, is slightly different from and more truncated than the Bill put forward by Norfolk county council. We believe that in the shortening of the Bill the Government have probably weakened it in one respect and strengthened it in another. It seems that they have strengthened it especially with reference to the navigational interests.
One of the great strengths of the Bill is that it was born out of concern by the local people. In a sense, the genesis came out of the decisions of the local county councils and district councils which, over the years, have tried to preserve the environment. That is not unique because, as the Minister pointed out, the Dower committee has considered the matter and the Hobhouse committee recommended that it should have national park status. As the Minister said, the local authorities and people of the area know the problems. They love the environment and have been concerned about the effect of the pressure of tourists, navigation and other things on the environment. It is interesting that the demand for special protection comes from the local authorities. I join the Minister in paying credit to the existing Broads authority. It has manfully tried to tackle the problems in a non-statutory way with considerable success, and it has tried to marry the often conflicting problems in the sensitive interrelation between waterscape and landscape. It deserves thanks for its endeavours.
It is interesting that the authority has recognised the problem and published its own report in 1982 about the Broadlands area. It has been very active. Indeed, it was from its endeavours that we orginally had the Bill before us in the form of a private Bill. The Bill represents the aspirations of the local councils, both district and county, and if one looks at the authority's reports, it is plain to see why. In the 1982 report and those that followed it came up with four major problems: polluted rivers, diminishing wildlife, erosions of the bank sides and the unique traditional landscape being dramatically affected. On a number of occasions we have debated the problem of the landscape, for example, when we were talking about the Halvergate marshes. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that when he replies.
I understand that the present regulations affecting agriculture support, established in 1985, were to run for three years—the summers of 1985, 1986 and 1987. If the Bill becomes law it will not become operative until April 1988. Does the Minister foresee any difficulty in the cessation of the period covered by the present agriculture regime which ends in 1987 and the new one which takes over, if the Bill becomes law, in 1988? It would be helpful if we knew. It would also be helpful to know whether he has any general comments about environmentally sensitive area status, the workings of that and how it would dovetail with the present Bill.
It is universally recognised, not only by the existing Broads authority but by everyone, that the pollution in the water of the rivers and the Broads is increasing. The authority is particularly concerned about the unchecked run-off and the effluent-rich nitrogen which is going into the water. Can the Minister tell us how he envisages that the new authority could tackle the problem of increasing nitrates? As I understand it, it would still rest with the Anglian Water authority to tackle that problem. Would the new Broads authority be allowed to require the water authority to take action to clean up and reduce the level of nitrates in the water? Similarly, on the problem of the erosion of bank sides, am I right in assuming that the new authority would have the right to impose speed limits on craft in the Broadlands area? From what I was told when in the Norfolk area it seems that the speed of vessels is one of the major causes of erosion of the bank sides. There is also the general problem of the character of the Broads landscape. As the Minister knows, 25 per cent. of the traditional landscape has been lost over the years. How can we retain the remaining 75 per cent?
We are worried by a number of things in the Bill. In a sense, what worries us most is the Bill's general tone. Obviously, various interests have to be balanced. The Minister quite rightly spelt them out to us. Those interests are reflected in clause 2 of the Bill which deals with the functions of the authority in general. Clause 2 states:
It shall be the general duty of the Authority to develop, conserve and manage the Broads for the purposes of—

(a) navigation;
(b) preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads; and
(c) promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public."


In total we would not object to any of those. We accept that those are the three pressures in the Broads area. However, we are worried because navigation is at the top of the list. It seems to us that the major aim of the legislation ought not primarily to be to protect and control navigation but to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and ecological balance of the Broads.
By putting navigation up front it seems that the real conviction of the Government is tested. I cast doubts on the Government's deep commitment to the environment and that is another aspect which leaves us, and most environmentalists in the country, worrying about the Government's real motives and whether they are really committed to achieving the ecological and environmental needs of the Broads.
I am further worried by the Government's announcement today. As I understand it—I may have misunderstood—the Minister said that he was agreeable to the instruction proposed by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells). I do not object to that particular point, but it lays greater stress on the representation of boating interests. The instruction of my hon. Friend the


Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) puts the other side of the coin and represents the views of the Opposition which is that the emphasis should be on the preservation of fauna and flora in the environment.

Mr. Waldegrave: It was not open to me to be agreeable to the instruction proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South. I am not too sure where we differ on this. The hon. Member for Newham, South said that he did not object and I said that I agreed. There does not appear to be much between us.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: There is a difference, in my opinion.

Dr. Clark: The key point is, does the Minister agree with the points that we are not allowed to discuss this evening? That is the dilemma. I do not question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend's instruction should not be called. However, the Government are placing navigation as the first general duty of the new Broads authority, yet they then state categorically that they are happy to accept the instruction tabled by the hon. Member for Maidstone.

Mr. Spearing: I believe that the formal position is that we are allowed to discuss the instruction. However, because of the selection by the Chair, which, of course, we accept, we are not allowed to reach formal conclusions about its merits. That would not prevent the Minister from saying that in general, without prejudice, he would not have opposed the instruction had it been selected. That is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Waldegrave: It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that, in that hypothetical situation, I do not think that I would have sought to urge my hon. Friends to divide the House against the hon. Gentleman's instruction.

Dr. Clark: I think that we have made history today. That is the first time that I have heard a Minister answer a hypothetical question. I am grateful that he has done so and I accept his assurance.
It is worrying that the words fauna and flora do not appear in the Bill. That worry was compounded in a press release issued by the Department of the Environment. A careful examination of that press release reveals that the emphasis lies in the navigation aspect of the Bill. Apart from a handful of words referring to status equivalent to national parks and the point about notification of specified operations, there is nothing in the press release that suggests that the Department is concerned about the environment. That causes great concern. I am somewhat reassured by the Minister and I hope that when he replies he will give us further reassurance on that point.
The Minister mentioned that it was difficult to reduce the size of the authority and I accept his point. Some bodies must be represented. The Minister specifically referred to anglers. I have read the Bill very carefully and I can find no reference to anglers or to anyone on the authority to represent their interests. Bearing in mind that far more people will be fishing on the Broads than boating, is that not an omission? Should there not be someone on the main body—if not the navigation committee—to represent the views of anglers? We need assurance on that, because the present Administration's appointment to the national parks authorities have not been encouraging to the amenity lobbies.
As the Minister is aware, there has been much anxiety within the environmental lobbies that they have not been properly represented as they were under previous Administrations—both Labour and Conservative—so that a balance can be achieved between the various interests in national park areas. Not only should the environmental lobby be represented—probably in a non-Government capacity as well as through the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—but we strongly believe that the tens of thousands of anglers who regularly use the Broads should also have some form of representation on the authority.
I have outlined our worry about the emphasis on navigation and some of the shortcomings of that. However, there are one or two specific points that cause us anxiety. Much depends on how the Government regard the various powers that would be permitted if the Bill reaches the statute book and how they are operated. That is especially true with regard to the management of the water space. Although clause 8 provides for the transfer of navigation powers from the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners to the new Broads authority, clause 10(10) virtually allows by agreement the full or partial delegation of those powers hack to the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners. I realise that under the following subsection the Great Yarmouth authority would have to work under the general remit of the Bill, vet it is still worrying that the Government are allowing the powers to be delegated back to the Great Yarmouth authority. It is all a question of priorities.
Clause 5 is central to conservation control. It deals with the:
Notification of certain operations within the Broads.
It is primarily concerned with potentially damaging operations. How does the Minister envisage that the orders will work? They are akin to those that operate at present in the national parks. As I read the Bill, they only have the power to delay potentially damaging operations. If someone wanted to damage irreparably parts of the Broadlands, unless a management agreement was negotiated, there is nothing that the Government or the authority could do after the 12 months to prevent that damage happening. That is one of the Bill's shortcomings.
That leads to the issue of landscape conservation orders. During the passage of the Agriculture Act 1986, the Government promised that there would be a statement on landscape conservation orders. Indeed the Minister claimed in a recent Centre for Policy Studies publication:
We have gone out to consultation on a proposal for a limited Landscape Conservation Order power, an initiative that has not had the impact it should have had. Again it represents a potential breakthrough.
I do not disagree with that. However, as far as I know, the consultative paper has not been published.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is correct and he is right to rebuke me in that sense. I had hoped that the consultation document would have been published by now. Unfortunately it has not been published yet, but it will be out very shortly, in any case before Christmas.

Dr. Clark: We are really making progress today. Not only has the Minister answered hypothetical questions but we have had an intimation that the printing industry works more effectively and faster than he had imagined. I am very pleased that the consultative paper will appear so that


we can discuss it in parallel at a later stage during consideration of the Bill. It is essential that there is some power to prevent potentially damaging operations.
We are happy to accept the Bill with the understanding from the Minister that he is prepared to listen to advice and other points of view. I hope that he will be very open in Committee.
I end as I began. On both sides of the House, we recognise the unique environment of the Broads. We recognise that it must be preserved and protected. Unless we do that, the pressures will get worse. I hope that the Government will adhere to the Minister's words and listen to us in Committee to ensure that the conservation, ecological and environmental aspects are given more—certainly at least—the same sort of status as navigation rights.

Sir John Wells: I must first declare an interest, as for many years I was joint proprietor, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), of a fairly well-known boatyard on the Broads and have subsequently maintained close contact with the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation, although I no longer have a direct financial interest in the Broads.
I very much welcome the Bill as a vast improvement on the county council's previous proposals. The whole House should know, because it is a fundamental truth, that the boat owners of the Broads were extremely perturbed by the earlier Bill. Fleets on the canals of this country have been, and are, increasing, but in the years leading up to that Bill there was disinvestment in the Broads, the number of hire boats declined and owners invested on the continent. Some hon. Members may see that as a good thing, but it is not good for Norfolk and Suffolk, because every hire boat brings in about £10,000 per year, about half going to the owner and the other half to the local community, so it is of great importance both in terms of employment and in terms of the spending money brought in by the tourists.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has got the beginning of clause 2 the right way round. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) would have preferred it to be the other way round, but I believe that it is just right. In congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on achieving that, I should like to take the unusual step of congratulating Mr. Walley, the civil servant substantially responsible for the negotiation and arrangement of the proposals and a gentleman of enormous ability and tact, who has done a splendid job for which the whole House should be grateful.
I, too, would have liked the main authority to be half the size. I counted the animals out of the ark two by two, and sometimes four by four, and I had hoped that we might be able to halve the number, but I entirely take my hon. Friend the Minister's point about the need to maintain a balance in the peripheral membership. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend mention anglers, but I was absolutely fascinated when the hon. Member for South Shields came like St. George to their defence. I thought that angling was a dirty word in the Labour party. I almost expected the hon. Gentleman to suggest some special representation for the South Norfolk Hunt or whatever. It was certainly an interesting about-face.

Dr. David Clark: I should make it plain that the Labour party has no plans or proposals to oppose fishing or, indeed, shooting. We have said that we find hunting with dogs reprehensible and we oppose it, but I state once again without any qualification that we are not against any form of fishing or any form of shooting.

Sir John Wells: It may have been out of order, but that was a delicious admission of guilt by the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that my hon. Friend has got the Bill substantially right, but I am still anxious about one or two small points. I have pointed out the great financial input of the boating industry in providing employment, but I also understand that the boating community, in the broadest sense, will be providing more than 50 per cent. of the authority's revenue. My hon. Friend the Minister was at pains to point out that central Government would pay more than half the grant and that the local authorities would pay less than half. A great deal of financial input to the authority, however, will not be grant, and I understand that more than half will come from the boating community. I believe, therefore, that the boating community should be given a little greater strength on the navigation committee. I welcome the fact that it seems—I stress that word—to have a majority, but it is possible that people on the authority apparently with marine or boating interests might not be so directly pro-boating as one might hope. I hope that we shall have an assurance that there will be a true majority of boating interests on that committee.
Consultation of the navigation committee by the authority is most important. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there are excellent and praiseworthy precedents for using the words
to take full account of the views of
rather than the words "to consult". There is a great deal of difference. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that. If the boating interests can have that assurance, I believe that they will be much relieved.
Clause 7 raises a slight difficulty, because when the Bill becomes law changes in its operation will be made by order. During the passage of the Bill we have the opportunity for a very full debate, for a Select Committee and a Standing Committee, and representations can be made to Members of Parliament, but once it becomes an Act Ministers will be able to alter it by order, which gives rise to some fears about lack of consultation in the future.
There is another area of anxiety. Under the Bill it seems just possible that the authority will set up its own boatyard and hire cruiser fleet. There is an extremely unhappy parallel with the British Waterways Board doing just that on the canals. I should deplore any intrusion into the trading situation by the new authority, and I seek an assurance that that cannot and will not take place.
There is also the question of temporary and permanent closure of navigations. Temporary closures will be subject to public inquiries and all the rest. That is excellent, but on my reading of the Bill it seems that a permanent closure can happen simply at the stroke of a pen. I hope that I am wrong. Clause 10 provides full scope for consultation about temporary closures, but I can find no provision that there must be consultation and a public inquiry about a permanent closure. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure me about that.
Another slight fear concerns the deregistration of boats. Clearly, a boat that is clapped out, dangerous or


unsuitable in some way should not be registered, or should be deregistered, but this could be a weapon in the hands of some cranky marine architect who thought that a broad stern, a narrow stern or some funny, fancy hull shape would be better for some obscure purpose, and the authority could simply deregister any boat not of that design. The registration of boats—or, worse still, the deregistration of boats already plying—must be examined very carefully.
Lest the House think that I am just a former boat-owning crank anxious to push one point of view, I should inform my hon. Friend the Minister that I was the unhappy under-bidder when the How Hill estate was gobbled up into the maw of the county council because my purse was a great deal shorter than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), who, I believe, was a county councillor at that time.
Although I failed to buy How Hill, I am delighted that the county council has now had the nous to privatise it, and I commend to hon. Members in all parts of the House the How Hill Trust, which is perhaps one of the most imaginative attempts at bringing the environmental charms of the broadland area to the nation as a whole and to local people living in the great conurbation around Norwich. After all, Norwich is not simply a small town. There are large villages nearby, the residents of which are almost townspeople. It is marvellous that the charms of an area such as How Hill should now be brought to the notice of the public, and I congratulate the county council on that privatisation.
I have a final warning for the Minister of State. The late Lord Colyton, once an estimable and admirable Member of this House, when Minister of State, one day foolishly said "Never", and he was translated to the House of Lords for his foolish sin. My hon. Friend has three times said that the aim of the Bill is to preserve the Norfolk Broads "for ever", yet at the beginning of his speech he said that the thing was man-made in the first place. Lest the environmental lobby gets too big for its boots, it should be pointed out that nine tenths—even virtually ten tenths—of the landscape of lowland Britain is entirely man-made, and those who think that preserving it in aspic, as it were, follows some great preservation ideal have got it wrapped round their ears. Agriculture, forestry and the needs of the day—digging turf, as the Minister said—have created the landscape of Britain. Let it continue for another thousand years to be a man-made, altered and living thing, rather than preserved as a fossil.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Like the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells), I must declare some interest in this matter, although not a commercial or financial one. I have been visiting the area for at least 45 years and have hired boats from at least eight yards. I am a member of the Inland Waterways Association, with a particular concern for navigation, and also a member of the Royal Yachting Association, which nominates to the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners, to whom I pay annual dues as a private craft owner.
As a navigator I enjoy the total environment of the area, along with many others, although I consider navigation to be part of that environment. While the hon. Member for Maidstone is right in that this is a man-made natural environment, and while we do not want to preserve it in aspic or anything else, there is a sense of trusteeship

for the totality of the British landscape and its resources that we must maintain—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Maidstone agrees, and I fancy that there is much more agreement on the Bill across the Floor of the House. I welcome that.
As I see it, our statutory problem is how to reconcile the many potentially conflicting interests in this lovely and important area. We now have the privilege of providing a statutory framework under which those potentially conflicting interests can work together and, we hope, provide a better total environment from which all can gain. That is almost self-evident, but in the end success will depend on the Bill's framework when it reaches Royal Assent and the good sense and willingness of the people of the area—which is an important characteristic—to operate whatever framework we provide.
That may not be easy. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) mentioned nitrates, but the quality of the water in the area will depend not solely on the quality of farming within the area itself but on the quality of farming in the total catchment area that extends far beyond the Broads.
There is also the question of optimum water levels and whether or not Halvergate will continue. There is also the control of what the Bill describes as "operations" within the area, such as the encouragement and maintenance of the traditional growing of reeds. That is something that we should all like to see continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields also referred to fishing interests. I do not know of a fisherman who wants to see boats anywhere near the area. Equally, some conservationists would say, "Let there he no power boats, just sailing or rowing boats." I would not go along with that view, although I have great sympathy with it. On one occasion when I was sailing a boat silently among the reeds thinking how marvellously ecological it was, I was confronted by an ornithological warden who shouted, "Take that boat away. Those sails will frighten the birds." Therefore, every interest has its own extremity with which we must deal.
Success of the Bill will rest on the quality of the trusteeship and the way in which these groups and interests work together within the authority once it is established. Like my hon. Friends, I very much welcome the Bill in principle.
The Minister made a kindly reference to my instruction, for which I thank him, but I was disappointed with the Bill when I read it. I did not have the privilege of looking at the various drafts, and therefore did not know what to compare it with. I felt that the Bill did not specify well enough what we are about—the maintenance, development and management of these man-made natural resources in such a way that maximum balance is obtained and maximum enjoyment, preservation and conservation is attained by all. There is nothing in the long title which suggests that. The duties spelt out in clause 2 do it to some extent when it states:
It shall be the general duty of the Authority to develop, conserve and manage the Broads for the purposes of—

(a) navigation;
(b) preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads; and
(c) promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public."


But there it ends, and I am not all all sure whether that provides a sufficient, well-defined statutory base for the duties of this authority. In my opinion, those duties must go well beyond what is contained in clause 2. I concede


however, that we cannot define the powers that subsequently follow until there is a reasonable agreement about what the duties should be.
I shall return to that aspect in a moment, but I now want to refer to the navigation point and the instruction of the hon. Member for Maidstone. In passing, I ought to say that I have visited the yard in which he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) were interested. In my view, it is one of the cleanest, neatest and best-managed yards on the Broads. I even put 50p in the water box which went towards the profits of their successors.
We must pay some attention to navigation, because up to now the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners have had the specific and sole statutory responsibility for dealing with navigation. The navigation to Norwich is particularly important. It is part of our coastal shipping, and long may it remain so. That is why I make no complaint about the specific powers and duties of the navigation committee contained in clause 9, although I well understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Maidstone that due regard should be taken of what that committee says and the potential danger of outvoting by non-navigational interests.
There is some danger in that point of view because of what, in the past, has been loosely referred to as boating interests. Even the Bill provides that three members of the authority must represent boating interests. Boating interests are not necessarily united, and there are many different boating interests on the Broads.
First of all, the Broads are already very well promoted by the holiday industry, such as Blakes and Hoseasons which are almost household names. I wonder how far the promotion of the Broads would be additionally helped by the authority. Rather than promote the Broads, perhaps the Bill's common objectives or duties should be to enable the public to enjoy them.
Whereas until recently many of the boating yards were locally owned by well-known local persons who put a great deal of effort and time into these classic private enterprises, more recently the boating yards have come under the influence of what might be called the national holiday industry. Boating yards have been sold lock stock and barrel, many of them having been bought and sold pretty rapidly.
In recent years the owners of such yards have included a national motor garage proprietor and distributor, bingo hall operators, brewers, holiday camp operators and even betting shop chains. They are interested only in making the maximum return from capital invested. That is natural but, because they are not locally based in the way that the industry used to be, there has been a degree of criticism and some controversy about how the boating pressures have impinged on environmental matters and indeed upon other boat users in the area. Boating interests, other than the major boat letting firms, such as those who sail for competition in the well-organised yachting clubs, those who cruise and those who own private craft are perhaps not too keen on the way in which some of boat letting companies carry on their affairs and, in particular, the problem of wash. I mention wash not just on the banks but the turbulence caused on the shallow river beds by the high-powered diesel cruisers with their screws. Those of us who remember the Broads before the war wonder whether

it is necessary to have 40 or 50 horse power diesel engines churning away inside vessels when moderately powered engines were used before. All the diesel engines do is push up the water and the vessel does not go much faster. There is little need for speed on the Boards over and above 4 or 5 mph. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Maidstone is nodding in agreement.
In the past 10 to 15 years the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners were not entirely active in dealing with these problems. Many things could have been done but were not, for instance, on speed, wash or noise. Often modern boats emit a noise that is a cross between a light aircraft and a combine harvester. Therefore, there is no one boating interest.
What about the extent of navigation? There are arguments for extending it. I would certainly like to see North Walsham canal extended up the river Ant, but should that canal be available to cruisers? I rather doubt it. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Waveney knows the river from Geldston to Ellingham. It would be a good thing if that stretch were extended for dinghies and skiffs up to Bungay or perhaps from Coltishall to Buxton. These boat lanes could be improved so that one could go in smaller craft by hand or sail as far as Aylsham. I do not think that anybody would argue with the extension of navigation of that type, but they might be against the extension of navigation for larger powered vessels.
While the interests of navigation must be of special regard because of the demise of the Yarmouth port and haven commissioners as the sole statutory authority for navigation, it must be placed within a satisfactory envelope of general duties, and that does not exist. That is why I had a shot in my instruction at putting down something of what I thought the general duties of the Broads authority might be, using what I knew of conservation, ornithology, angling, fishing, navigation, boating, and leisure interests.
Although my instruction has not been selected for debate, I hope that it could be the basis for further discussion, especially if there were petitions later. It is by no means perfect. I have suggested that when any petitions are referred to the Committee, it must satisfy itself that
the Bill will provide adequate duties and powers to the proposed Broads Authority that will enable it to:
(a) ensure the conservation and preservation of the fauna and flora of water, land and air and their habitat;
There may be marginal encroachments on that under given conditions and given safeguards to encourage and implement the other objectives, but that must be the overriding purpose.
My instruction continues:
(b) arrange for the management of the natural environment in a manner that, whilst permitting public access and maintaining rights of navigation, ensures the maintenance of the essential ecological equilibrium of the area;
Of course, there are matters beyond the area that the Broads authority does not have the power to control, but within the area the overall ecological equilibrium or, indeed, the restoration of it to the equilibrium that existed just after the war would be generally acceptable and a good objective for the management.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are real dangers in that proposition? Although it sounds very worthy as he has put it across, the Broads are very much a living area with


people, housing, business and commerce all mixed in. Although one must support his general good-natured ideas, there are dangers in what he suggests.

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure about the dangers—perhaps the hon. Gentleman could spell them out. If he will bear with me, I shall quote the third section of my instruction, which states:
(c) encourage the provision and management of recreational and other facilities that, without prejudice to the preceding objectives, assist the maintenance and enhancement of the natural resources and beauty of the area for the benefit of inhabitants and visitors to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.
Perhaps that could be slightly modified because
without prejudice to the preceding objectives
might be a rather tight instruction. If it read "without prejudice to the overall preceding objectives", that might be a well merited amendment. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman nodding.
Without some more definite spelling out of the general objectives and duties of the authority, any proposals or restrictive measures, and the merits of those measures and of the management and operations within the area, cannot be adequately judged. Unless they can be adequately judged on an agreed criterion, the relationship between the different interests is likely to be less easy than if there were a commonly agreed template. Once that exists it becomes a matter of good relations—give and take—and of working towards solutions to difficult problems over time. If that template is not in place, there is a danger that different parties and interests in the authority will try to get their way by dominating the committee, having an annual general meeting or acting harshly rather than by conciliation and consolidation.
We can assist in this important objective and give the Broads authority a good send-off by providing it with more specific duties than are in the Bill. In that way we shall ensure that those who live in and visit the area can say, "Those people in Parliament have provided us with a satisfactory structure and we, as trustees, will get on with the job."

Mr. Ralph Howell: I shall begin my remarks by——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called Mr. John Powley.

Mr. John Powley: I thought that I heard the name correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), had it been your wish.
Two of my hon. Friends will be unable to speak this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is, regrettably, absent because of his temporary indisposition. I pay tribute to him for his work behind the scenes, promoting this Bill and its predecessor for the good of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. The Bill is the result of his hard work. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has lobbied assiduously behind the scenes to improve the Bill.

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and what he says is correct. Both of our hon. Friends have played a major part. It is rash for any Minister to think to refer, let alone to refer, to my right hon. Friend the

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but he has also played a helpful and supportive part in the Bill. I hope that he will continue to do so in all the multifarious ways open to him.

Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that addition.
There cannot be many people born in East Anglia who do not have a high regard for the Broads, commonly referred to as the Norfolk Broads, which include the Suffolk Broads. Of late, the Broads have attracted people from a much wider area than East Anglia. They are now known internationally and people throughout the world hold them in high regard. When I told my mother yesterday what I would be doing today, she reminded me that my first holiday on the Broads was 40 years ago and produced a faded photograph of me on a motor cruiser. That all goes to show that in East Anglia there is great feeling for the Norfolk Broads.
The Norfolk Broads cover a wide area and spread into my constituency. Indeed, the river Yare runs into my constituency. The Broads authority headquarters, which were established in 1978, are also in my constituency. In one way or another a great many of my constituents have an interest in the Broads. They work on or for constituent parts of the Broads or they take their recreation there.
I have the honour to represent many boat owners, including pleasure boat owners who ply for hire, and many nature lovers who use and frequent the Broads. Many constituents take their recreation there and some have second homes there. That may sound strange, but they tell me that they need to relax from living in the fine city of Norwich, so they spend their weekends at their holiday homes on the Broads.
It may come as some surprise to hon. Members that the river Yare has sea-going coasters. During the miners' dispute, pickets were sent to the port of Norwich to prevent the dispute being broken by coal imports. Every year 70 ocean-going vessels come to Norwich. That may not sound many and, indeed, it is not compared with some ports, but I mention it because people do not think of Norwich as a port. Of that 70, 36 go to Cantley. That opportunity to bring business to my constituency is important and those involved need representation.
The boat hire industry brings many tangible benefits to the region. About £16 million a year is estimated to be generated by the industry and about 650 people are employed full time in boat building and another 500 in servicing boats during the high season. It has been calculated that between 5,000 and 6,000 full-time and part-time jobs depend on the various industries of the Broads. Therefore, not only do the Broads bring a great deal of pleasure to many people, but a great deal of work and income to the region. The city of Norwich and constituencies in East Anglia are trying to promote tourism. We have an ideal opportunity in the Bill to enhance the status of the Broads as a tourist attraction.
Nothing stands still and it is evident to those of us who have known the Broads for a considerable time that they are no exception. They are changing and as more people use them, unfortunately, they deteriorate. Over the years the river banks have eroded. Through a little research I found that the banks are eroding at a rate of about 3 metres in 10 years. It must be obvious to everyone that we cannot allow that to continue. The position would become impossible. The Bill's provisions will help in the work to strengthen the river banks.
Over the years the water quality has deteriorated. Naturally, farmers use fertilisers and chemicals on their lands which find their way to the rivers and the Broads. Measures need to be taken to improve the quality of the water. The bird and plant life has been affected. Those and other matters need urgent attention and can be given great attention in the Bill.
The present Broads authority is administered by eight local authorities—Norfolk and Suffolk county councils, North Norfolk, South Norfolk, Broadland and Waveney district councils, Great Yarmouth borough council and Norwich City council. Any right hon. and hon. Members who have been in local government will understand that sometimes difficulties——

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I was involved with the formation of that Broads authority. Is my hon. Friend aware that the authority now operates as a coherent whole, having had powers delegated to it by those various local authorities? The situation after the local government reorganisation of 1974 was exactly as my hon. Friend describes, but since the formation of the Broads authority there has been the most unusual animal of eight local authorities working together, having delegated powers and having financed the authority that my hon. Friend is discussing.

Mr. Powley: Of course, I recognise the work that has been done by those eight local authorities. My hon. Friend has great experience from his membership of Norfolk county council. However, any policy put forward in the past has to be considered and approved by the constituent authorities, and the resolution may not necessarily be accepted by all eight local authorities. The new authority will have functions that will enable it to go forward more positively than it has done previously.
I pay tribute to the Broads authority and hope that many of its policies will continue in future. The Broads authority has done a significant job in improving the status and use of the Broads in the past. Through Broads information centres it has brought to the attention of tourists and holiday makers messages about conservation and information as to where they can benefit from the tourist facilities. It has run a successful programme of guided walks, visits and events for the public entitled "Fun in the Broads". It has improved facilities at quays for boat-borne visitors and has also improved the quality of the moorings. Since 1978 it has performed a vital function, but its function could be improved by the authority given under the Bill.
Some hon. Members may be concerned about the staffing content that may follow the establishment of the new authority. That remains to be seen. I share the fears voiced by many hon. Members about increases in staffing. I have spoken to the Broads authority and also to the local authorities. The Broads authority currently employs 20 full-time staff on an agency basis, and also uses the staff of the various local authorities concerned. I am given to understand—and I have no reason to doubt—that a watch will be kept on the staff taken on by the new authority. However, I understand that there may be a modest expansion of four or five new staff. The achievements that can be made under the new authority will make that modest increase worthwhile.
Some people have commented that there has been inadequate consultation on the Bill. One or two of my constituents have written to me saying that there has been a great rush to get the Bill on to the statute book. I have never understood the great rush to get any Bill on to the statute book. It takes an inordinately long time to do so—rightly in many cases.
The Bill is similar to that promoted last year by the local authorities. Considerable consultations took place then, and this Bill is not very different from what was under consultation then. Three public meetings were held last year, in Norwich, Great Yarmouth and in Lowestoft, and they were well attended. Many boat owners and other interested parties have had an opportunity to make their representations known. All the local authorities concerned have discussed the matter in open council and the public have had the opportunity to lobby their councillors before they reached agreement. The matter has been public knowledge and the public have had the opportunity to lobby their Members of Parliament on the issue. When the Bill goes into Select Committee, following today's Second Reading, the public will have yet a further opportunity to make their representations known. Therefore, although I can understand some of the comments about lack of consultation, close examination of what has happened does not bear out such accusations.
There will undoubtedly be some consideration in Select Committee and at future stages. However, I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will take the view that the provisions of the Bill will be of overriding benefit to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. We should rightly discuss the nitty-gritty in Select Committee and in Standing Committee and there will also be discussions in the other place. We should keep in our minds the overriding benefit that the Bill will bring to the Norfolk Broads, and approach all our discussions with that in mind.

Mr. Clement Freud: I hesitate to take up too many of the comments by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) in his speech, which was part travelogue and part history lesson. It could have been a maiden speech, but it was longer than most maiden speeches.
As all other right hon. and hon. Members have done, I should like to declare an interest. While I have no territorial ambitions for my constituency, I have spent most of my life in Suffolk living less than 10 miles from the southern extremity of the Suffolk Broads. Unlike the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I do not give a guarded welcome to the Bill; I welcome it wholeheartedly. It is a splendid Bill, although like most Bills it should have come sooner, and as with most Bills one would seek to change the emphasis. However, that is the purpose of a Committee and I am delighted to learn that the Bill will go to a Select Committee. That is the ideal way of obtaining expert evidence and of correcting the emphasis.
I was disappointed by the fact that the spirit of the Prime Minister's letter to David Puttnam did not seem to be reflected in the small print of the Bill. However, I hope that this will be put right in Committee. The empasis should be more on conservation than on navigation. I have considerable sympathy for the Minister in trying to marry the interests of the navigators and the anglers, for nobody has yet found a satisfactory solution; the passing of a boat


infuriates fishermen and the existence of a line creates considerable hazards for boaters. I represent a constituency with as many drains, canals and dykes as any hon. Member and, therefore, I know how difficult it is to get the two sides to accept a similar point of view.
I want to speak for a moment about the constitution of the Broads Authority, which is called a body corporate. I wish it were not so corporate. I wish that there was more leanness about that body because 35 people are almost incapable of coming to a good, proper and fast decision. I am sorry that, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) put it, everything seems to have been multiplied by two, which enhances the confrontational nature of district councils, and I am sorry that there seems to be no immediate access by parish councils to that authority. I hope that one of the nine members of the new authority will be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment to be responsible for taking the opinions of the parish councils, which tend to know more about the Broads than do the district or county councils in that they have minute and proper knowledge of them.
I have never believed that Whitehall knows better than the people on the spot, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the need for a mechanism under which parish councils have access to a member of the new authority. The local politics of East Anglia, which will benefit immensely from proportional representation when it comes, tend to give the impression that of two members from each district council, one will be Labour and one Conservative or one alliance and one Conservative, which better reflects the political opinion of East Anglia.
We in the alliance wish the Bill well and hope sincerely that in Committee even more thought will be given to matters such as nature conservancy. That is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. It mentions natural beauty and it might be useful to explain what the Government mean by that. Does it mean that the Broads look pretty? That does not necessarily ensure good conservation. Clause 2 outlines the duty of an authority to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Broads and that should be more specific.
I do not know how much navigation there will have to be for natural beauty to be retained, but I am sure that that will be sorted out by the experts. I simply reiterate that we wish the Bill well. We think that it is the right Bill and high time it were here. We shall hope, in the Select Committee, to make it even more environmentally conscious and perhaps give less to navigation and commerce than it does at present.

Mr. James Prior: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I thought that the debate would start later than it did.
I declare an interest, in that I used to have a commercial interest in the Broads. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has taken advantage of it in the past, and I hope that he will do so in the future.
I have lived in Broadland for longer than any of my colleagues, although I have not been such an active participant on the Broads as have a number of my colleagues in the House, so some may speak with greater authority than I can. All I know is that it is a lovely and unique part of England, and all of us recognise that something had to be done.
It has been difficult to get people to decide what should be done. Therefore, I can only say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for grasping this rather tricky nettle and for satisfying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) said, most of the interests. However, he will know, or will learn from experience, that it is impossible to satisfy every interest of a Norfolk or Suffolk person. That would be asking too much, and with that there should not be too much disagreement.
I have some short points to make. The natural environment of the Broads is not as good as it was 50 or 25 years ago, but it is nothing like as bad as some would make out. Some of the reports that I have read over the past few years bear no resemblance to the Broads as I know them or as I have seen them recently. The last time that I was taken on a tour of the Broads was by the Norfolk county council. It complained to me that a lot of reed was disappearing. I happened to see a gaggle of greylag geese busy eating the reed on the side of the river, and I quickly found out that the geese had done more damage to the reed than had almost anything else. Mr. Harry Cator of Woodbastwick introduced about three pairs of geese in 1936. They have bred exceedingly well, as have Canada geese, and I like to see them.
It is pointed out to me that the ecology of the Broads does not stand still. The balance of nature changes. In some respects it has changed for the worse; for example, the quality of the water, and some of the things that have happened. Undoubtedly one welcomes the conservation measures that the new authority will be able to take, but we should not get too steamed up and think that everything has gone wrong, because it has not.
Boat owners have worries, and not all of them get on with fishermen or conservationists, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said, but, on the whole, those who go on the Broads for holidays are interested in the conservation of the Broads, want to see them kept in a decent state and want the peace and quiet which the skies and flat country of Norfolk are particularly capable of giving. Therefore, I hope that the navigation people will not be neglected on the Committee and that their interests will be looked at reasonably.
I am a little worried about the bureaucracy. I agree with the points that have been made about the size of the authority, but I see ominous words at the end of the explanatory note:
A small number of new posts may be created.
I wonder how many times that has been thought at the beginning of an organisation such as this and how the number has grown afterwards. I hope that a careful check will be put on that, because I can see some busybodies busying themselves about this and I hope that they will not be allowed to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and others have pointed out that the Broads are man-made. The one thing that could easily destroy the Broads, and nearly destroyed them in 1953, is an abnormal tide flooding large parts of broadland. The same thing could easily happen again. Several of my hon. Friends and myself have made strong representations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that more money should be allocated for coastal defence and protection. It would be useless to give the Bill its Second Reading today and subsequently to put it on the statute book if we do not give the Broads the protection from the sea that they need.
I shall give an example which may fall in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) or in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) who, as a Government Whip, is unable to take part in the debate. In 1936 there was a serious flood in Horsey. The coastal protection there is pretty poor. If the sea got in again and swept right across Horsey Mere, it could do enormous damage. As the Broads are man-made, they must be protected from time to time by man-made operations. I hope that that fact will be borne in mind because it would be little short of a national tragedy if the entire ecology of the Broads was once more disturbed by an influx of salt water and the weight of water which would result from another flood of 1953 dimensions.
I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. We all wish the Bill well. We hope that it will be considered properly in Committee. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the Bill and for grasping this difficult stinging nettle.

Mr. Ron Davies: No hon. Member who has heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) can help but respect his obvious love for his home area and the expertise and depth of knowledge with which he has spoken. He said that in Norfolk or Suffolk it was impossible to satisfy every interest. That characteristic applies also to Wales.
I shall demonstrate the truth of the right hon. Gentleman's words by saying that I for one am not entirely satisfied with the Bill as it has been presented to us by the Minister. The Minister has a difficult task to perform. We all recognise that everyone who is involved in the economics of land use, be he Minister, environmentalist or someone concerned with conservation, realises that it is a difficult task to reconcile the interests of, first, those who depend on the land for their living, secondly, those whose concern is the protection and furtherance of the environment and, thirdly, the genuine interests of those who seek to use land for recreation. In the Broads there is a fourth dimension—the demands of those who wish to use the Broads for navigation purposes.
The Government should be holding the reins. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that, depending on the sensitivities of a given area, those varying demands are properly met. The Government have not got the balance right. They have not given conservation its rightful priority. From the wording of the Bill, it appears that conservation is one of the lowest priorities of the Government.
That is not only my view. I have had representations made to me, and I am sure that other hon. Members have received similar representations. I received a brief from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It says on the subject of nature conservation:
Throughout the Bill there is a presumption in favour of preserving and enhancing the landscape of the Broads with insufficient regard for nature conservation.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England—it gives me great pleasure to quote this—said:
The Bill appears to CPRE to give insufficient emphasis to conservation and too much to navigation. At many points in the Bill the conservation interest is played down or absent.

The Council for National Parks, which has done sterling work in Wales, said:
But as the Bill stands it is open to very wide interpretation. It is even possible to read it as a navigation Bill, with conservation responsibilities seen as an added extra. This is upside down and would negate the value of the Bill.
Those three quotations fairly represent the breadth and strength of feeling in the conservation lobby. That is why I recounted them.
I have some specific reservations about the Bill and I shall mention them to the Minister as briefly as possible. My first reservation refers to clause 2. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) mentioned this. Clause 2 places duties on the authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, those duties are navigation, preserving the natural beauty of the Broads and promoting their enjoyment by the public. I am disappointed that nowhere in that clause, which lays down specific duties, is conservation mentioned. I disagree with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells), who unfairly dismissed the arguments of those who advance the cause of conservation. Under clause 2, specific provision should have been made and a specific duty should have been placed on the Government to promote those measures which protect or enhance the habitat, especially with regard to our mixed flora and fauna.
Clause 5 gives discretionary powers to the Government so that they may specify activities within the area covered by the Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I wish to understand clearly what the hon. Gentleman has said, so that I may reply to him. He seems to be arguing that conservation is not covered in the objectives of clause 2. Is he arguing that preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads does not cover conservation, or is he arguing that that does not go far enough or is not specific enough?

Mr. Davies: The Bill as it stands is specific. It refers to the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Broads. If the Minister says that that is a comprehensive omnibus definition which places clear responsibilities for the enhancement and preservation of nature conservation and refers specifically to flora and fauna, I shall be grateful. However, the Bill does not say that. If the Government intend to make provision for that, we are perfectly entitled to ask that they make their intention clear in the Bill.
Clause 5 gives powers to the Government to vary or to specify the agricultural activities that may be carried out. I am disappointed with that, because it gives a discretionary power to Ministers. Elsewhere in the Bill the Government have made it clear where they are placing responsibilities. Clause 5 says:
Ministers may by order specify".
That does not put any requirement on Ministers. Presumably, therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in its negotiations with the Department of the Environment, will say that there is no mandate or requirement for the Department of the Environment or the Ministry to ensure that agricultural policy is in tune with the overall objectives set by the Bill. I accept that we may have to consider the detailed points at great length in Committee. That series of reservations adds up to what is, in my opinion, a deficient Bill.
There is no reference in the Bill to any serious discussions between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is no reference to the agricultural strategy. When the Minister opened the debate he made great play of the fact that the Broads are a large agricultural area, with well-established agricultural practices, some of which have given rise to problems of pollution and degradation of the natural landscape. I am disappointed and surprised that no reference is made to the overall agricultural strategy to be carried out within the Broads area.
What is happening to our much-heralded Broads grazing scheme? The Minister made no reference to it. It is due to end in 1988, after its experimental introduction in 1985. During that period £1·7 million was allocated. How does that fit in with the new strategy? Are the Government introducing a total strategy? If I understood the intervention of the Under-Secretary of State, it would appear that the Government are concerned with the whole question of the environment. Are we to assume that the Broads grazing scheme—that welcome experiment by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—will be taken out and that agricultural provision will be separate from the provisions in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister can also say what financial provision will be made. The £1·7 million that was allocated will finish in 1988. What will happen then? Will the cost of the grazing scheme come from the additional moneys that will be made available for the overall Broads scheme?
My fourth point relates to the unfortunate overloading with navigation interests of the committees provided for in the Bill. The hon. Member for Maidstone and other hon. Members wish to protect the cause of those who regard boating as their prime pastime. That is perfectly valid. However, I disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South related the anecdote of the birdwatcher who shouted at him for sailing in an area because his sails would frighten the birds. I must tell him that if he was sailing in the wrong place at the wrong time in a sensitive area, the birdwatcher was right to shout at him. There is a case for placing restrictions on boating interests. If vital and distinct environments are being destroyed by those pursuing leisure activities, we should be prepared to place restrictions on them. There is a disagreement between us, and I hope that it can be explored in Committee.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that my hon. Friend is referring to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells). Although I agree with zoning and with some restrictions on sailing, I think that my hon. Friend would draw a distinction between the Broads and the navigable channels.

Mr. Davies: I think we are agreed that neither of us would frighten the birds.
It is unfortunate that there is a clear majority of boating interests on the navigation committee, because some of those interests are clearly to the detriment of the natural environment. Pollution, intrusion into areas which should be protected, noise and the effects of backwash at sensitive times, are all important. If the navigation interests control the navigation committee, they will have their way at the expense of all of us. I do not suggest that they are insensitive, but we are all politicians and we all realise that a majority is there to be used for the furtherance of an end.
There is a clear majority of navigation interests on the authority generally——

Sir John Wells: No.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman says no, but my reading of the Bill shows a clear majority. I know that the hon. Gentleman disagrees and that he argued earlier for stronger representation, but if we assume that the representatives of the county councils and the district councils are neutral, at best, two members will be appointed by the Countryside Commission and one by the Nature Conservancy Council. Others will be appointed by the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners and the Anglian water authority. The Secretary of State will appoint nine, three of whom will represent boating interests. If we assume that the representatives of the local authorities are neutral, the authority will have a majority of boating interests.

Mr. Carttiss: What on earth makes the hon. Gentleman think that the representatives of the local authorities will be neutral in what he has presented as an argument, or a battle, between boating interests and conservationists? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr Prior) said, those who go on the Broads for boating holidays are equally concerned with conservation. I do not understand how the 18 local authority members will be neutral in a battle between conservationists and boat hirers. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) said, boating interests are not represented on the main authority anywhere near enough to match the significance of their industry.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman made two points, the first relating to the political complexion or leanings of the local authority representatives, and the second that those who use the Broads for recreational purposes are by their very nature unaware of their responsibilities for conservation. That was not my case. I said that the activities of those who wish to use the Broads for recreational purposes can, in some circumstances, damage the environment. I mentioned especially the problems of pollution, backwash and noise.
As for the political complexion of the local authorities, all that I can do is to examine the Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in that area and make some assumptions. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that those assumptions are wrong, I stand to be corrected. I should be grateful if the representatives from Norfolk county council, Great Yarmouth borough council, South Norfolk district council and Waveney district council would put to one side all the pressures placed on them by hon. Members here tonight, by commerce and by the tourist industry and say, "We must ensure that the habitat is protected and that restraints are placed on those who use the Broads." I doubt whether that will happen, but if it did, I would be pleased to be proved wrong.
My last point on the overloading of navigation interests is that the Bill provides a power of delegation to the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners of some or all of the functions of the Broads Authority. The Bill allows the complete delegation to the commissioners of some of the powers contained in the Bill. Does that mean that the authority can, in some circumstances, relinquish its responsibility to protect the natural beauty of the area? If we accept the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of


State that the Government are responsible for nature conservation, can we assume that the authority will be given the opportunity to delegate those powers to the commissioners? That is the case as the Bill stands. It shows that the Government have got the balance wrong and that—I am loth to use the expression—they have gone overboard in favour of navigation interests.
The Minister referred to the legacy of the past 50 years and spoke with great sincerity about the damage that had been done to the Broads by man's activity, especially during the past 50 years. If he accepts the damage that has been done and that there is a case, not only economically but in terms of conservation and of preserving, enhancing and developing the Broads for recreation in its broadest sense, the Bill should have made some reference to the functions of, or the finance to be made available to, the Broads Authority to enable it to begin to right some of the wrongs that have been done. There is a clear consensus across the Chamber that many areas of the Broads have been damaged, although not irreparably, in recent years. When establishing the Broads Authority, the Government should give it specific powers, if not a duty, to start to remedy some of those ills.
The Bill will receive an easy passage this evening because there is consensus, although there may be disagreement on the emphasis which the Government have placed on boating and on conservation interests. However, the Bill will not have such an easy passage in Committee or on Third Reading unless the Government are prepared to recognise that there are valid conservation arguments. In Committee, we expect the Government to make significant moves in this direction.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
This is a memorable evening in many ways. The Government have cause to be proud of introducing the Bill. It is also a memorable evening for Norfolk county council. It worked very hard when preparing the original Bill, the forerunner of this Bill, and I pay particular tribute to Martin Shaw, the director of planning and property, who worked tirelessly for this Bill.
It is also a memorable evening because my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is to address us. It is a rare privilege for the House to have the benefit of my hon. Friend's oratory and knowledge. However, he is to break his silence tonight. I suspect that what he has to say will be well worth listening to. He does not subscribe tonight, as he often does, to G. K. Chesterton's great dictum, that silence is the most difficult argument to refute, or, alternatively, to the dictum that silence is the most perfect expression of scorn. My hon. Friend has adopted a different course. I am therefore looking forward to hearing his speech. He knows more about the subject than any hon. Member in the House tonight, with the probable exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior). I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I trespass on his terrain. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are of interest not only to Norfolk but internationally. That is why this is such an important debate.
My constituents are very concerned about progress being made on the Bill. There is monumental concern about countryside and conservation matters. By taking the Bill on board, the Government have risen to the occasion. There are problems, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was quite right when he said that they have been exaggerated.
I have been concerned for some time about water pollution, in particular about the release of phosphate from sewage works and nitrates from agricultural run-off. The two make a particularly unpleasant concoction, with the result that the nutrient build-up encourages algae which suffocate water plants and disturb the delicate relationship between fish and plant life. The result has been a massive decline in a wide variety of plant species. Furthermore, damage has been done to the banks. That is partly related to the build-up of nitrogen. It has made the reed beds unstable and therefore more likely to be torn away by the wash from boats. When reed beds are torn away they become exposed and therefore eroded. Silting is encouraged, which leads to the need for dredging. It is a vicious circle.
Another problem that has been exaggerated is the decline in the marsh and woodland management practices that did so much to conserve the unique habitat of the Broads. Many would refer to this as the "Halvergate syndrome." The vast majority of landowners and farmers in the Broads area are as concerned as anybody about preserving the unique character of the Broads. My right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred to Harry Cator who introduced the grey lagged geese. His two sons, Francis and John Cator, are two of the most responsible landowners and farmers in the Broads area. It is a very small minority of farmers who have got farmers and landowners a had name.
Action has been taken in the last few years. Anglian water has made a number of major attempts to reduce phosphate levels. A big initiative was taken recently by Anglian water, the Broads Authority, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, and quite a lot has been done about bank erosion. Since its inauguration, the Broads Authority has made numerous attempts to introduce new ways of managing recreation and sorting out the inevitable conflicts between sailing, cruising, angling and sports such as water ski-ing, to say nothing of the importance of ornithology.
I have referred to the action that has been taken to protect traditional grazing techniques. The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the Broads grazing marsh conservation scheme. I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister of State upon having seized the initiative over the "Halvergate" problem by introducing this imaginative scheme, and I hope that it will be continued. There is no reason why it should not be continued after the three-year trial period. Within the context of the new Broads authority that will be created by the Bill, there is a far better chance of continuing that excellent scheme.
A great deal of action has been taken over the establishment of the Broads authority. It is to have the status of a local authority joint committee, and local planning powers are to be delegated to it. It is to have close links with waterways and navigation. It has made an effective start, but insufficient progress has been made on waterways and navigation. It has been impossible to


provide a comprehensive management framework. There is a case, therefore, for transferring navigational powers to the new authority.
The new authority needs to have integrated management powers in order to control the rivers, the Broads and the associated land areas. It must be given navigational responsibilities. If the new authority is not provided with those responsibilities, it will inevitably become land-based and very little different from the bodies that govern the national parks. The case for comprehensive management is overwhelming. I await with great interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth has to say.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) that some navigational matters need to be sorted out. One of the problems is that the authority will be too big. When I intervened earlier, I mentioned that fact to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I think that 35 is an unwieldy number. The interests of boat owners and also the navigational interests will be diluted by the sheer size of the authority. I should like those interests to be not just consulted but listened to very carefully.
A few problems will be caused by clauses 4 and 5. Those clauses will apply sections 42 and 43 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to enclosed farmland for the first time. We are referring to traditional grazing areas. They are very different from grazing areas in national parks. They have been enclosed for many years. I am wondering whether the Bill is the right vehicle for a precedent of that nature.
I have reservations about subsections (6) and (8) of clause 5, which grants to the new Broads authority powers of entry without notice to establish whether an offence has been committed. We are referring to a minute number of farmers and landowners who have abused the responsibilities of countryside management that have been entrusted to them. Those powers could lead to unnecessary conflict and possibly to ill feeling, even to aggro, in the farming and landowning community. I urge my hon. Friend to examine carefully the great powers that are contained in those subsections.
This is a good Bill, and this is possibly our last chance effectively to save one of the unique elements of our national heritage. The Broads are a very special part of that national heritage. It is to the Government's credit that they have risen to the challenge and seized the opportunity. The Bill falls into the pattern portrayed by the Government's great concern for the countryside and conservation. I do not think that any other Government has done more for the countryside and conservation—[Interruption.] That is why the people of Norfolk and Suffolk are grateful. They are glad that a Conservative Government are in power. I do not think that a Labour Government would introduce such a Bill. The hearts of Labour Members might be in the right place, but we often hear a lot of hot air and rhetoric.
Many people in the Broads feel that some of the policies advocated by the Opposition amount to nothing less than an assault on the fabric of our rural community. Anglers in my constituency are frightened, because, although Labour Members say that angling will not be abolished, they intend to launch an attack on field sports. Many anglers enjoy hours and hours of sport, exercising their ancient freedoms in the Broads. They are fearful of what would happen under a Labour Government. They are

grateful for this Conservative Government, who have shown such wisdom in introducing the Bill. I certainly wish it well.

Mr. Michael Lord: I shall be reasonably brief. Perhaps I can reintroduce a note of harmony to our proceedings. There is a great deal of common feeling about the Bill on both sides of the House. My constituency does not quite take in the Broads, although it is close to them and I know them quite well. However, I cannot speak with the same depth of experience or feeling as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), who clearly knows the area jolly well.
I have an interest in conservation, sailing and in anything to do with the environment. The Broads are world famous and unique, but they are also industrial relics. We all know that they are old peat diggings, and it is interesting that former industrial workings should now be regarded as natural features that have a recreational facet to them. We get a lot of pleasure from them, but they also have implications for gravel pits and the like. With a little imagination, today's industry could well be tomorrow's recreation, provided that we put our minds to it.
As a small boy, I read Arthur Ransome's books. I do not know how many of my colleagues read them, but those children got up to various things. One of the books, "Coot Club", was all about the Broads and the efforts of those children to preserve a coot's nest so that the chicks could hatch out of the eggs and could go on to reproduce. I believe that the ogres in that book were people who owned a particularly noisy and fast motor launch, and, if my memory serves me right, they nicknamed them the "Hullabaloos". They surged up and down the Broads and the children felt that they did everything that they could to destroy the coots' nesting habits. I make that point to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), because the problems that we are wrestling with today obviously existed before the war and are not new to us. Sadly, we have not learnt much since then, and that is why the Bill has proved necessary.
The wash caused by boats travelling too quickly is very detrimental to the banks of waterways such as the Broads. Having heard the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I can say only that if boat owners cannot be dissuaded from travelling too quickly, firm action must be taken. I care for the environment. One can stand on the river bank and watch the boats going by while realising, minute by minute, just what damage is being done. All the interests must be balanced, but if it is a choice between strict regulations on speed and causing such damage, there should be firm restrictions on the speeds at which boats can travel.
Mention has been made of the quality of our water. I do not want to go into too much detail about nitrates, heavy metals and all the long-term problems involved. Obviously, boats have a pollutant effect, too. However, I have a general point to make that also relates to the Broads. Nowadays, we tend too often to set our water quality standards at the minimum. We should bring all our modern technology and ideas to bear so that we think not of minimum standards but of dramatically improving the quality of water year by year so that future generations can


see what we have done. In many ways, that involves farming and industry, but it also applies to the Broads. Sometimes we think about what we can get away with instead of how dramatically and rapidly we can get back to much purer water.
Conservation is essentially about balance. It is sad that in this day and age people still need to be controlled. But judging from what we have heard tonight, that control is still necessary. I hope that I have made it clear that if it is a choice between control and permanent damage to our environment or even loss, controls should be put in place. As a Parliament, our duty is not just to guard and preserve what we have but, as I hope that I have made clear, to use all our modern techniques to improve our surroundings for future generations.
Points have been made about the size of the authority to be established. I hope that the authority will be large enough to do the job asked of it, and that it will not expand and lose sight of its purpose. Local people and local authorities want this Bill. We must trust them to ensure that it works, and I congratulate the Minister on it.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) in generally welcoming the Bill, and to join hon. Members in all parts of the House in their almost unanimous welcome for the general principle behind it. I am also pleased to join my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) in paying tribute to all those involved in the preparatory work on it.
I am quite fortunate to be able to join other hon. Members in having a copy of the Bill, as in Norwich there has been some difficulty in obtaining it. During the past few days my constituents tried to get it, but were unable to do so. Consequently, I found myself last night reading out clauses to constituents and trying to put at least some of their fears at rest. That, of course, also bears on the whole question of time for consultation. Although this Second Reading debate has come upon us pretty quickly, particularly for those who wanted to read the Bill in advance, there has been a lot of consultation in the past. I am sure that there is also a good deal of consultation to come while the Bill is in Committee.
My constituency is adjacent to that of Mid-Norfolk, which contains a large part of the area under discussion. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) in regretting that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is unable to be here tonight. I join in the tribute paid to the work that he did in preparation for the Bill.
Part of the Broads authority area lies in my constituency, in Thorpe St. Andrew, alongside the river. But although most of my constituents do not live in the Broads authority area, they are actively interested in the Bill either because they have interests in boating, conservation or land use, or because they have leisure pursuits to follow at the weekend. Consequently the Bill is of great interest to my constituents.
Through the good offices of the Broads authority, I have been able to see some of the excellent scientific work that is being done in the Broads area, which is relevant to many of the matters are that is being discussed this evening. Before anyone fears that I am about to launch

into a scientific discussion, I remind the House that as a physicist and an engineer I am singularly unqualified to talk about such matters. I appreciate, however, the good and relevant scientific work that is being done.
There is widespread support for the Bill, but in my constituency there is genuine concern as well, which in my brief speech I shall try to express. We want to get things right because we are talking about the future of the Broads area and of Norfolk for tourists and everyone else. There is support for the Bill because it is recognised widely that the quality of the Broads environment has been deteriorating for many years. Indeed, it can be said that that has been happening ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) first visited the Broads, but I am sure that there is no connection between the two facts.
The quality of the environment of the Broads has been monitored for 40 years and it is evident that there has been a serious deterioration. Many factors can be blamed for this, but I shall make no attempt to list them or to point the finger at any one cause. The various factors have been discussed adequately on other occasions.
I shall outline briefly the areas of concern which have been expressed by my constituents over the past week. First, will the new Broads authority be as good as the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners were in the control of navigation? It is a fair question, and I am sure that it will be asked again this evening. I look forward to the answer of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
Another area of concern that has been referred to already this evening is the size of the new Broads authority. Will it be too large with a staff of 35? On the face of it, such a staff appears to be too large, but any attempt to reduce it would bring us up against problems of balance and conflicting interests. Possibly I am prepared to go along with a figure of 35 on the basis that it just has to be that large. I merely say that it would appear to be unwieldy.
A third area of concern that has been expressed by some of my constituents—it has been referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells)—is the navigation committee. Will the committee have enough power? As the Bill is drafted, only consultation is available to the committee. I share my hon. Friend's concern when he talks about whether consultation is sufficient, or whether full account should be taken of the committee's views. I am sure that others more expert than I will speak more about that issue as the Bill is considered further. It is important to achieve the right balance.
There is a measure of misunderstanding in Norfolk about the constitution of the navigation committee. Many of my constituents, some of whom I was speaking to on the telephone last night, think that there will be only one representative of the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners on the new authority. My reading of the Bill is that there will be more than that. I have no doubt that I shall be corrected if my understanding is wrong.

Mr. Carttiss: The commissioners will have two members on the authority as the Bill stands, but only one will serve on the navigation committee. Does that help my hon. Friend?

Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his help. There is some misunderstanding and I hope that my hon.


Friend will have the opportunity to set out exactly the committee's composition and that of the authority from the point of view of the commissioners. These are not matters on which I am an expert, and I can say only that there is concern in my constituency. I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has gone a long way towards increasing the representation of the boating interests. He has done the right thing and achieved about the right balance, but many will be pressing for greater representation. On the other hand, we have heard hon. Members say that in their opinion the representation of boating interests has gone too far already. Perhaps I take the middle and commonsense view that it is about right as it stands. I received today a letter from the Royal Yachting Association which states:
There has been a considerable improvement over the earlier version of the Bill and a more even balance.
It expresses, however, some concern about other matters.
There are some other areas of concern to which I shall address myself. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take seriously the real concern on Norfolk about the relationship between local authorities, the new Broads authority and the Anglian water authority and its responsibility. This issue may overlap with that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) when he talked about flooding and coastal erosion, which are serious issues causing a great deal of concern.
There is concern about whether a pressure group, a conservation or boating group, will have its way and destroy the proper balance. It is vital that in considering the Bill we arrive at the right balance. Finally, my constituents are worried about whether toll charges might act adversely on those who have to pay them. Under the new financing arrangements there could be an element of cross-subsidisation. Those who pay tolls or other charges might find themselves paying indirectly for other activities of the authority which have nothing to do with their boating activities, for example. There is real worry about that and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address himself to it when he replies.
The Bill is the culmination of many attempts over many years to solve a serious problem. There is support for it, but the Government and hon. Members generally have a duty to ensure that the right balance is struck between the various interests and concerns. The Bill is significant environmentally and very important. That is why we should all put our concerns to one side for a moment and welcome the Bill. As I have said, it is of great significance.
There is a danger of the Broads authority going forward in some way that will cause us to be unhappy. We do not want the Bill to result in a growth of bureaucracy. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, in whose constituency this could occur, we do not want to see a vast building being erected at great public expense following the Bill's enactment. Provided that that does not happen, I am sure that we can put aside some of the fears that are being expressed.
We do not want the Broads area to become an overcrowded and over-busy tourist area that will destroy the natural environment. We do not want to see the area become one vast marina with boats everywhere and nothing else. We do not want to see this lively and living area deadened by the wrong sort of emphasis on

conservation. I hope that no misunderstanding will arise about that because we are all in favour of conservation, but the right balance must be struck.
The new authority will have the duty to develop, manage and conserve the Broads area, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the issues that have been raised under clauses 1 and 9. The Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners have a fine tradition and, judging by the letters that I have received from my constituents, they are well respected for the work that they have done, and are much appreciated. I hope that their views are taken fully into account as the Bill proceeds through the House. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill's general principles and I hope that the concerns that I have expressed, which are those of my constituents, will be debated fully and taken fully into account.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I echo many comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). He is the first of my hon. Friends to suggest that the Minister has got it about right when it comes to the size of the authority. I underline that fact. I understand the arguments that have been put forward for a smaller authority. The present Broads authority, set up by the local authorities, has a membership of 26. In some speeches there was confusion between the membership of the authority—people appointed by local authorities—and the other interest groups, the Secretary of State and the staffing elements. I understand the points made about the size of the authority. The Minister has got it about right.
I never was and still am not much of an admirer of Government quangos. I was elected as a Conservative Member when my party, in government, was dedicated to reducing the number of quangos. It is steadily increasing them. The Countryside Commission is a quango of long standing. I was concerned about the original proposals to set up too small a body. The Countryside Commission deserves a tribute for its initiatives over several years. It was in response to its initiatives some six or seven years ago that the local authorities directly concerned set up the Broads authority. Incidentally, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), it does not have to have its decisions ratified by the constituent authorities. It was a remarkable move forward to get eight local authorities to give their powers to another body over which they had no control, and, moreover, give up money provided by ratepayers over which they had no control. That is a remarkable achievement in any part of the country.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) said, to achieve it in counties such as Norfolk or Suffolk is a tremendous example of our determination to recognise the importance of our Broads heritage. The Minister, with all the power he has at his disposal, must resist suggestions that the authority's membership be reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the fact that I do not very often have the honour of addressing the House. That is because, once I get up, I cannot stop. I am aware that we have an opportunity to suspend the Ten o'clock rule. I promise not to intrude on time that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will want.
The reason why I do not speak very often, apart from the length of time I normally want to take, is that I share a room with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West. He usually picks up my notes and makes a speech before I realise the notes have gone. He did not have my notes tonight. If he had, he would not have made those absurd comments about the importance of transferring navigation powers from the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners to the Broads authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North correctly said that his constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), my own constituents and people from all over the country are greatly concerned about those powers.
It is not unusual for our friends in the alliance parties to attend the start of a debate, welcome what is happening and then disappear. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) was uncharitable when he referred to my hon. Friend the Minister as making too long a speech about history, giving a travelogue and, also, a maiden speech.

Mr. Powley: It was me.

Mr. Carttiss: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. That just goes to show that I probably did think my hon. Friend the Minister for State gave hon. Members a travelogue and too much history. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for missing his opening remarks. He kindly allowed me to look through his notes. My hon. Friend made one of the best speeches that I have known him to utter. I have read my hon. Friend's speech. It was good.
This is an opportunity to refer to one of our distinguished local newspapers which referred to the scuppering of the "private Member's Bill." They are the newspaper's exact words. It was not a private Member's Bill; it was a private Bill which the newspaper says had got lost in the parliamentary mire. They are the newspaper's words, not mine. It did not get to the parliamentary mire. One does not expect someone who writes an article for a newspaper in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, South and for Norwich, North to know the difference between a private Member's Bill and a private Bill. Nothing was lost in the parliamentary mire. It was a badly drafted Bill. Some of my colleagues drew attention to the fact that this Bill is much better. To do credit to that local newspaper, it referred to it as a much sharper and shorter Bill. It went on to state:
The only safe course is for the Broads Bill to glide smoothly through the discussion channels… Anyone risking the rocks in defence of a narrow interest cannot be deemed a true friend of Norfolk.
A true friend of Norfolk will give the Bill careful and detailed scrutiny. That is a case not of losing it in the parliamentary mire, but of conducting what this honourable House and the other place were created hundreds of years ago to achieve—that the legislation that we pass takes account of all interests for which they are legislating.
I trust that the Bill will have a safe passage, but it will have a passage in which there will be a few waves. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench may occasionally need to draw in their oars, lower their sails, or whatever. I cannot think of anyone better than my

hon. Friend the Minister to pilot the Bill through the House. I look forward—if it is the wish of the House—to serving with my hon. Friend on the Standing Committee to try to achieve a better Bill than the one he presents now, though I acknowledge that the Bill is good anyway.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East mentioned a point that needs to be considered, certainly in Committee—parish councils. In a district council in Norfolk, whether it be Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk or Broadland district council, parish councils have the opportunity to convey their views on every planning application within their area. They do not go to the local district councillor; they have a right to submit their observations on planning applications within their areas direct. The executive area of the current Broads authority has been given planning powers by the local authorities. I want the new statutory authority to be able to ensure that parish councils have the opportunity, in respect of those matters which come within the executive area of the Broads authority, to project their views, for much the same reasons as those put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West implied that I would make a terrific oration. I said at the time that he usually takes my notes, but he could not have done that this time. If he had, he would have known that the Bill is not about water quality. That still remains essentially the responsibility of Anglian water. Some of us wonder why it is necessary to transfer the navigation powers of the port and haven commissioners to the new Broads authority when it is possible to leave Anglian water and the land drainage committees with their powers intact and acknowledge that there must be some association between them.
When I was a very small child, living within 200 or 300 yards of the Broads where my grandfather fished for eels, as his great-grandfather had done before him, for Squire Lucas to sell on the London markets, I did not think that I would one day have the privilege of speaking in a debate about the setting up of a Broads authority. As my hon. Friends have said, this is an historic occasion, because the international character of our broadland heritage is being recognised.
Some of my hon. Friends have spoken of the importance of the Broads to our economy in Norfolk as a centre of tourism. Great Yarmouth, which includes a substantial part of the Broads, attracts 1 million to 2 million visitors a year. The Broads alone attract well over 250,000 visitors a year. Those visitors bring essential cash into our economy. I represent a constituency with 17 per cent. unemployment, and we certainly do not want anything to inhibit the development of tourism. For that reason, the continuation of the boat hire and building industries is vital. They employ 3,000 people. Many thousands more benefit directly from the existence of the Broads.
Hon. Members have referred to their interests. My interest is that of a descendant of many generations who have lived in and worked on the Broads. In 1966, as a new county councillor elected to represent Broads villages, I had the privilege to be one of the early members of the Broads Consortium which was set up following the Broads review report of the Nature Conservancy Council. That was 20 years ago. I have already, in an intervention, reminded the House that I had the opportunity to be a


founder member of the Broads authority when I represented Great Yarmouth borough council. I have the privilege also to serve on the staffing appointments committee. I put in my vote for Aitken Clark as our chief executive.
This is my opportunity to pay tribute to the members of the the local authorities—Norfolk and Suffolk county councils and the district councils, of which Great Yarmouth is pre-eminent, although I acknowledge the other districts which are represented here. I pay tribute also to Aitken Clark for the way in which he has managed and advised the authority in the development of policies aimed at ending some of the difficulties identified in this debate. He has given eight years of distinguished service. I am sure that he will look on this debate with pride to think that the Government no less have considered the Broads important enough to warrant this measure.
I pay tribute also to the clerks of the authority, the navigation officers and the rivers inspectors of the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners who have given equally dedicated service and shown as much concern for conservation as to navigation during their 100 years of responsibility. I have yet to be convinced that there is a case for taking away their powers. I acknowledge that today we need to begin the consideration of a Bill that proposes to set up a new approach for the next 50 years at least in terms of our Broads and their environment. Therefore, there is no reason for looking back at the past.
I should like to identify clauses in the Bill that I believe will need to be the source of much discussion in Committee. I do not think that the clauses need result in the Bill being materially affected. I have had an opportunity to discuss some of the clauses with my hon. Friend the Minister, and I know that he is prepared to consider my representations along with all the others he will have to consider such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
The powers of the Broads authority will be the subject of great concern, as will the financial arrangements. Again, we have to strike a balance between the need to spend money to preserve the Broads and to encourage tourism. I have already talked about the importance of the tourist industry to Norfolk and my constituency. Its international character has been referred to by colleagues. Many people come across the North sea on the Norfolk line ferry every day in the summer time from Scheveningen, the port of The Hague, to Great Yarmouth and then go on to the Broads. My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North and for Norwich, South have the airport at Norwich with its frequent flights from Amsterdam to Norwich. In the summer that regularly brings continental holidaymakers who appreciate and value our broadland environment. It is important that the authority should have powers and that the Government should commit themselves to the sort of financial arrangements that are laid out in the Bill.
I acknowledge the lateness of the hour and the concern to complete the debate by 10 o'clock and I recognise that many of the details I wish to talk about should be dealt with in Committee rather than on Second Reading. However, I would like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to a few points of concern in my constituency. I should add that for five years I served as a Norfolk county council nominee on the port and haven

commission. I relinquished that position on the passage of the Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Act 1986 at the end of the last Session.
The boundaries of navigation jurisdiction between the Broads authorities and the commissioners—clause 8(1) and clause 24 of the Bill—are one major cause for concern that will need to be carefully examined by the Select Committee and the Standing Committee.
The second major point of concern is the Broads area as defined and the overlapping powers in the area of the haven. That refers to clause 2(1) and (2).
Another concern is the definition of the navigation area with particular reference to banks—clause 8(1). I shall need to address the House on that if given the opportunity at a later date.
The next area of concern relates to the provisions for dredging in relation to the maintenance of the flow of water through to the haven. That point could take 10 minutes to explain, but I will not detain the House nor weary your patience, Mr. Speaker, by dealing with it tonight. However, it is a serious point that the House will have to consider at some stage.
The provisions relating to the transfer of staff and property give cause for concern. I am surprised that I have heard hardly a reference tonight to the lack of consultation with reference to the staff. The Bill appears rather to regard staff as so many boats to be conveyed from one owner to another. The rivers inspectorate of the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners are not local government staff to be transferred willy-nilly to another authority.
Much of the emphasis of the Bill lies in its character as a kind of local authority Bill. It ignores the fact that the commission is not a local authority and that its staff have much expertise and will still be needed for the navigation functions that the commissioners exercise in the haven.
Clause 10(6) relates to schedule 5. We need to have clarification of the duties and responsibilities of the harbour master of Great Yarmouth and the Broads and the Norwich navigation officers. Some people expressed anxiety about bureaucracy. There is one navigational officer now working in some loose association with the Broads authority, but there will be a different association in future. Under the Bill, there will be three officers. It has always been a fundamental principle of the Government, whom I have the privilege to support, that they should not create three jobs when one will do.
I am also concerned about the membership and remit of the navigation committee. I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) on this point and must disagree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. However, that is certainly a point that we can debate together in Committee. Hopefully, we shall have the privilege to serve together on the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South expressed an awareness and concern for the commercial traffic travelling to the port of Norwich from Great Yarmouth. He also referred to the importance of coastal shipping in terms of the sugar beet factory at Cantley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk. I share his regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk is unwell and cannot be here tonight. However, I know that he would be the first to acknowledge that the major part of the Broads area that falls within his constituency was, from 1951 to 1983, part


of the Great Yarmouth constituency and many people there have made representations to me as well as to my hon. Friend about navigation matters, not least because of their awareness of the importance of seagoing freight traffic on the river Yare.
I should like to draw attention to some of the letters that I have received from all over the country. The notion that the Broads is purely a Norfolk and Suffolk concern has been well and truly buried by the debate tonight. There has been wide recognition that the Broads are a national and, indeed, international heritage. The Ship and Boat Builders National Federation has entered comments that it has circulated to many hon. Members. We must pay attention to some of its concerns. One of those relates to the Broads authority being obliged to consult only the navigation committee. There is no requirement for it to follow the navigation committee's advice. To some extent, that reveals the difficulty of having a Broads navigation officer, a Norwich navigation officer and a Yarmouth harbour master responsible for navigation in the haven, when it comes to him wearing that tricorn hat and serving two masters, without clearly understanding which has the main responsibility.
Time is running short, but I shall detain the House a moment longer to draw attention to a letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). Having had 30 years' intimate knowledge of the Broads, she says:
The expertise of the Commissioners in their particular field has been built up over a continuous period of more than 100 years, and, of all the authorities concerned with the Broads, I have never heard a single word of criticism levelled at them. The tolls which they collect are substantial and they regulate navigation strictly and to the very highest standards.
That lady, Mrs. Mont, has great experience of public bodies and the way in which local authorities work and is leader of East Sussex county council. That endorsement of the port and haven commissioners' work comes from right outside Yarmouth and from a person with no vested interest.
I shall not detain the House by quoting from letters to other colleagues making the same point, but I cannot refrain from drawing attention to a letter from the chairman of the planning and local affairs committee of the Yarmouth chamber of commerce, which also expresses concern about navigation provisions in the Bill that it is anxious to discuss with me and to see recorded in due time.
Whether the Bill provides for an agency, which we discussed with the port and haven commissioners, Norfolk county council and the Countryside Commission before, or whether it is a co-partnership arrangement are matters that the press has questioned and to which I shall return in later debates.
Acknowledging the general movement of opinion towards the importance of the Broads authority having navigation powers, although I am still prepared to argue about that, the principle to which I have already adverted and to which I now draw attention as being of the utmost importance is the issue of commercial traffic on the river Yare, which in my view is not adequately covered by the Bill. We have had a great deal of discussion about that, but I shall conclude by referring to a letter from the Earl of Caithness, then Under-Secretary of State for Transport. In a letter addressed to the leader of Norfolk county council,

he referred to the importance of safety on the river Yare. That letter, dated November 1985, was discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who was then at the Department of the Environment but is now at the Department of Education and Science, so it was written with the knowledge of the Department of the Environment.
To illustrate the need for further discussion about the navigation clauses, I quote the following passage:
There is also a need to maintain control over the movement of commercial shipping on the Yare between Norwich and Yarmouth. Yarmouth, particularly because of the two opening bridges in Yarmouth. The Department's view is that it would be undesirable, on safety grounds, for there to be more than one authority responsible for control of navigation in the area consisting of Yarmouth harbour, the River Yare up to Norwich, the River Bure up to roughly Acle Bridge, and the River Waveney up to roughly St. Olave's Bridge. The Department would see no objection, on safety grounds, if there were a different authority responsible for navigation on the remaining part of the Broads.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State will respond to this point when he replies, but it is one on which we shall have to spend some time in Committee.
May I conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Labour Members may say "Hear, hear," but this happens to be important to a constituency with 17 per cent. unemployment. Labour Members pretend that they are the only ones who care about unemployment, but I care about it as do my hon. Friends, including my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
The navigation clauses will have an effect on the boat hire and boatbuilding industries which have an employment content and potential within the constituency of Great Yarmouth and neighbouring constituencies. Those navigation proposals will also have an impact on the port of Great Yarmouth and on the commercial traffic that goes along the river Yare, which the Department of Transport acknowledges needs to be looked after by one navigation officer. I know that the Bill allows for one navigation officer, but I remind the Government of the difficulty of a navigation officer serving more than one master.
I am sure that we shall return to these details. Accepting that they will be examined carefully, I know that the local newspaper was right when it said that the Bill would have a smooth passage. However, on the way, we shall have to change some of the arrangements inside the boat.

Mr. Rowland Boyes: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) either in his argument or in the length of his speech.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have declared an interest. It is unnecessary for me to do so, although I take the opportunity to mention my interest in water resources and in the Washington waterfowl park. I am sure that my hon. Friends will expect me to say that it is the best waterfowl park in Britain.
The Labour party is always anxious to support measures that lead to an improvement in the environment. Consequently, I wish to emphasise several important points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We give the Bill a guarded welcome, but it contains too little on conservation. Nevertheless, I join my hon. Friend in supporting the Bill in principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made a valuable contribution, and I assure him that we shall support his Instruction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made four important points. The first was the need to achieve the right balance between the interests involved. The second was the lack of conservation, and if the Government intend to talk about conservation they should say explicitly what they mean. My hon. Friend also referred to the agricultural strategy and to the Bill's apparent emphasis on navigation.
The hon. Members for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the Labour party's attitude to angling. I shall deal in a moment with the scurrilous misrepresentation of our policy and our support for angling.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said that he had difficulty in obtaining copies of the Bill. That is a matter that he must take up with the Government Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) referred to the importance of protecting this beautiful and important area from sea flooding.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, in his informed and carefully researched contribution, developed the Labour party's position on the Bill and its views on general conservation. In my short contribution this evening I wish only to raise a few questions and to underline the questions raised by my hon. Friends. I shall put them into different sections, and my first question concerns managed access. We consider that this is an important facility and amenity for the local population—this has been mentioned by many hon. Members this evening—and also for helping tourism.
Jobs are important. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned the high level of unemployment in his area. Most hon. Members on the Labour Benches represent constituencies with very high unemployment levels. If we were in government we would do something about it, and if the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth wants to reduce the level of unemployment in his constituency, he should talk to his hon. Friends about it.
Obviously, we are interested in maintaining jobs that are already in existence and also in creating new ones. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) quoted some statistics, which I noted. He said that 650 jobs in the region are concerned with boat hiring and that an additional 500 jobs are available during the high season. I am well aware that about 300,000 people come into the area during the holiday period, and most spend a considerable amount of money—somewhere in the region of £20 million. That money adds to the economy and, one hopes, will help to protect jobs.
I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to answer all our questions this evening, but I hope he will answer our questions concerning access to the area. Someone to whom I spoke today about the area said that unless one owns land or owns a boat it is difficult for many local people to get on to the Broads.
Much has been said this evening about the balance between different interest groups—the balance between farming, navigation, boating, leisure and conservation. We have argued, as have some Conservative Members, that there is too much emphasis on navigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly mentioned that the Council for the Protection of Rural England has said that

the Bill appears to give insufficient emphasis to conservation and too much emphasis to navigation. The Council for National Parks has said:
as the Bill stands it is open to very wide interpretation. It is even possible to read it as a navigation Bill.
We are concerned about the lack of conservation measures, but I shall give the Minister the opportunity to answer without any further comment.
Much concern has been expressed about the excessive speed of boats, which is causing erosion and the loss of reed beds in the northern rivers of the area. I was interested in the explanation given by the right hon. Member for Waveney about the geese. In my waterfowl park—it is perhaps rather arrogant to call it my waterfowl park—there is a tremendous collection of geese and ducks as well as other wildfowl. About 7,500 hectares of marshland have been transformed for farming purposes. That, together with the improvements in drainage on some remaining land, has impoverished the aquatic flora and fauna of much of the dyke system and left most marshes too dry to be suitable for nesting sites for red-shanked snipe and other wetland birds. We regret that.
Hon. Members have mentioned noise and speed, and I should add overcrowding to that. Overcrowding reduces the quality of the holidays and recreational experiences of people, especially those from other areas who go to the Broads to enjoy them and for a holiday. In a letter, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds stated:
it is essential that the new Authority have sufficient powers to control activities on water…the closure of any part of a navigation channel
should be a possibility. Under what circumstances do the Government envisage clause 5 being used? Is it part of a long-term strategy, or will it be used only in environmental emergencies? Perhaps the Minister could answer that question.
I am tremendously worried about the pollution of the waters caused by the addition of nitrates, phosphates and other chemicals from agricultural run-off and the domestic sewerage system. Urgent action is needed. The Council for National Parks is explicit on that and states:
The Bill permits the Broads Authority to carry out works and make grants for the purpose of improving water quality in consultation with the Anglian Water Authority. There is, however, no specific additional conservation responsibility placed on the AWA as a result of this Bill.
Perhaps the Minister can look into that.
In a discussion about land on the Broads the Nature Conservancy Council in its June 1986 topical issue stated:
the Broads are suffering from a surfeit of nitrate and phosphates, and this has had a devastating effect on the ecology of the region. All but four small Broads are now virtually devoid of waterweeds and their associated invertebrates.
Will the Minister consider carefully the problem of water pollution on the Broads?
Many hon. Members have spoken about the balance of interests and have shown concern about the emphasis on navigation. It is possible that half the committee could have an interest in navigation. The Secretary of State can select nine members. Will the Minister tell us how the Secretary of State intends to use that gift? Will he ensure that there is a balance of interest on the authority?
The RSPB emphasised the possibility of boating interests being over-represented. In a letter it stated:
It is conceivable that over half of the members of the Broads Authority may represent boating interests. This is excessive and should therefore be limited to no more than four (of eighteen) to ensure an equable representation of interest.


The hon. Members for Maidstone and for Great Yarmouth made remarks on angling about which I feel strongly. I defy either of them to find any reference in any of our documents or party manifestos——

Mr. Carttiss: At no time did I speak about angling, and I certainly did not mention the Labour party.

Mr. Boyes: I just need to find the right constituency. Two Conservative Members made that point. What the hon. Gentleman said does not negate my argument; it just gave him the opportunity to add to his overlong speech. I see in "Dod's" that one of the hon. Gentleman's recreations is talking, and I presume that he was using that opportunity to put that interest into practice.
I defy any Conservative Members to find any documentation which says that the Labour party will abolish angling or is even threatening to do so. I put it on the record this evening that the Labour party has no intention at the next or any other election to abolish angling. I go even further. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I would say that a Labour Government would ensure that the angling interest was represented on the Broads authority. I cannot be any more specific than that. If any Conservative Members want to misrepresent our policy, we now have it firmly on the record.
On this matter we speak with one voice. I am aware that Norwich city council is Labour controlled and that Norfolk county council is Tory controlled, but they agree on the need for the Bill. The Labour parliamentary candidate for Mid-Norfolk has said that the Bill is a step in the right direction and the RSPB has said that it welcomes the Bill as an important step in ensuring the conservation and enhancement of this ecologically important area.
Labour Members welcome the Bill. The Liberal and Social Democratic Benches are, as usual, empty at this time of night. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) gave the Bill his wholehearted support. All of us on the Opposition Benches have said that we will support the Bill this evening, but that we have reservations, and we hope that they will be raised in Committee and accepted by the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): This has been a measured and informative debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said, we have been dealing with a matter not just of local interest but of great national concern.
Many detailed points have been raised and I sense that the House wants to bring this debate to a fairly rapid conclusion and to move on to the next business. Therefore, I apologise in advance for not dealing with many of the points raised. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) generously said that it would be impossible to answer all the detailed questions and we shall be writing to him on some of the points that he made. Obviously, as will be apparent to many of my hon. Friends, many points will be dealt with in detail in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I do not give way too often during the rest of the debate. I wish to answer specifically some of the points that have

been made. I shall take them in chronological order because I cannot think of a better way of dealing with them.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made one or two points, some of which were repeated during the debate. I shall try to answer what I consider to be his main points. On the recurring point about pollution and the position of the Anglian water authority, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) recognised, the water authority will remain responsible for the quality of the water. There is no change in that. Nor would it be appropriate, for the reasons given during the debate, for that to change. That is only a fairly modest part of the entire water system. It must remain under the control of the water authority, although the Bill imposes a new responsibility on the authority to consult the new Broads authority. That is a new constraint vested in it. Speaking off the top of my head, I would be surprised if that was repeated with respect to many water authorities in a comparable position.
Several hon. Members asked about the important matter of the agricultural experiment and whether it would be continued. The three-year experiment in Halvergate will end on 31 March 1988. From 1 April 1988, the new arrangements under the Agriculture Act 1986 will then apply. The Broads have been designated as an environmentally sensitive area. The Government will offer incentive payments to farmers to continue traditional farming methods as implied by the experiment.
The powers to stop damage raised some complicated issues. I know that the matter is of enormous interest to the hon. Member for South Shields because he has been deeply involved in the amendments of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 42 of that Act is, in effect, the model upon which the Bill is based. The powers contained in section 42 are comparable to those in this Bill which require farmers and foresters to notify the national park authority before carrying out any activities which may contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The penalties involved will be comparable in this Bill to those in the Act that is already on the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) asked about the percentage that the boating fraternity would have to contribute towards total costs. I have the detailed figures—their contribution will be 30 per cent. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members may wish to debate in Committee whether that contribution is too high or too low. My hon. Friend raised a rather difficult and technical, but important, point on the difference between temporary and permanent closures. The power of an authority to close a part of a navigation channel permanently is limited. It may be done for the purpose of nature conservation. It must not be used to shut off a navigation channel other than the very end of one, or to create a serious obstruction to navigation. The temporary closure powers have a much wider range of purposes. That is why an elaborate procedure with safeguards is set out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) made a point about coastal defences. The Broads authority will have no powers in respect of those defences. They will remain with the local authorities. Nothing in the Bill will change the present position in that regard.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and others asked whether the Government have the balance right. That theme ran through the debate. The hon.
Member for Newham, South asked whether we would try to make the definitions and objectives of the authority more clear-cut. That theme ran through his speech. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly to ask whether he could not conceive that the objective in clause 2(1)(b) would meet the point that he had made. I was pressed by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington to say a little more about this. On reflection, I should say that clause 2 confers a duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Broads and requires the authority to have regard to the desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads. That wording certainly takes into account flora, but it is arguable whether, to the same extent, it takes into account animal life or fauna. This matter may properly be the subject of further discussion in Committee. I hope that my remarks give some assurance to the hon. Member for Caerphilly and those who argued for a tighter definition of conservation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) argued that clauses 5 and 6 contained powers that were too strong, although some others argued that they were too weak. Access management and the powers associated with it will be discussed at some length in Committee.
Several hon. Members asked about the size of the authority. Some have argued that it is about right and some that it is too large. Its composition was certainly a recurring feature of the debate. I hope that the House will agree that the matter can properly be discussed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning said that part of the problem was gathering together a wide selection of interests. A recurring problem throughout the Bill is reconciling different interests, and one way in which that has been done is through the authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North mentioned the Royal Yachting Association letter. That is an important document for consideration by the House and by the Committee. The boating aspect has worried several of my hon. Friends, but the Royal Yachting Association says clearly that it supports the concept of a statutory Broads authority and that its representations are intended to ensure, as most hon. Members would wish, that the Bill represents everyone's best interests and that its details are properly constructed, whatever point of view one takes.
Several hon. Members were troubled by the suggestion of cross-subsidy. The accounts must be absolutely clear. The details of how they will be operated are bound to be the subject of great discussion in Committee. We shall discuss how the accounts will be treated and how we can ensure that the moneys paid by the boating interests are used for navigation purposes. There will be a great deal of detailed discussion. The principle is firmly enshrined in the Bill. Details will have to be discussed, but I hope that they can be left to the Committee stage.
I refer to two points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). He mentioned the rights of parish councils to make direct representations. I acknowledge that that right is not included at the moment. I have briefly discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and we agree that it would be appropriate to discuss it in Committee. The Government will listen carefully to what Committee Members have to say about it.
My hon. Friend also referred to a matter affecting navigation. That is why I am standing at the Dispatch Box. It is the Department of Transport's responsibility to ensure that navigational interests are balanced against other interests. The Department of Transport looked carefully at the Bill and had its doubts about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth referred to the early doubts about whether it would be wise to split certain aspects of control of the waters. Having consulted widely, the Department has been persuaded that if the two authorities fully co-operate divided responsibility should provide an acceptable, safe alternative. There will be discussions in Committee about the precise nature of that co-operation. My hon. Friend has raised an important and useful point, and the Department of Transport believes that it can be worked out, if common sense prevails.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the Broads are a unique heritage. Hon. Members also agree that the Broads have deteriorated in several respects. In recent years there has been a serious risk of part of the heritage deteriorating beyond repair. The Bill aims at striking a balance between the needs of conservation and the needs of those who use the waters of the Broads for commercial and recreational purposes. The fact that each set of champions on each side of the equation is calling for more attention to be paid to its side of the argument probably means that the Government have got it about right. Therefore, I recommend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 23rd January 1987, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in any Petition against the Bill or in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Ordered,
That if no such Petition is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be submitted to a Standing Committee.

Ordered,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agent in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.

Ordered,
That Three shall be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Ordered,
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Bill is committed to satisfy itself, having regard to any petitions referred to it, that the Bill will provide adequate representation for boating interests and will neither unduly increase the cost of, nor enable undue restraints upon, boating on the Broads.—[Sir John Wells.]

Orders of the Day — NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expense incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — Dairy Industry

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to move the motion, I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal party.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9161/86 concerning emergency measures in the dairy sector, the Commission proposals described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 18th November on the same subject and the Government's intention to seek agreement on arrangements to bring production in the milk sector into closer balance with consumption.
Whether the amendment is ever moved remains to be seen. However, I should perhaps start with a word of explanation of why this debate has been arranged in the absence of some of the formal documents.
The House will know that the Commission recently produced what it described as an interim report on the application of the quota system in the milk sector. That report has not yet formally been received by the member states, although we have obtained advance copies, and these were made available in the Vote Office on Friday. The report outlines a number of measures which the Commission believes would help to restore the balance in the milk market. These measures are the subject of my Department's unnumbered explanatory memorandum referred to in the motion now before the House, which the Scrutiny Committee recommended for debate.
In view of this recommendation and the widespread interest that the Commission's ideas have aroused, I was anxious that the House should have the opportunity of making its views known before this matter was discussed in the Council of Ministers next week, even though all the Commission's formal proposals have not yet appeared. Incidentally, I notice that Liberal and SDP Members have not appeared either. Where are those great enthusiasts, who put motions on the Order Paper and never turn up?
It would be difficult for me to overstate the importance of the sector whose problems we are debating tonight. The House will recall that there are 1·4 million milk producers in the European Community. In the United Kingdom milk accounts for more than 20 per cent. of the value of agricultural output. I see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), a Liberal Member, has now joined us.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The debate started five minutes early.

Mr. Jopling: No doubt the hon. Gentleman can pick up its threads as we go along.
Milk tends to be particularly important for smaller farmers and, indeed, it is the type of production that one associates most readily with the small family farm. It has the advantage of bringing in a regular income month by month, although that is achieved only by the hard physical grind of milking two or three times a day, seven days a week, and it demands a high degree of skill and stockmanship.
It is clearly essential for the well-being of agriculture as a whole that we look after the dairy sector. The problems which the milk industry is facing now must be dealt with in a way which shows an understanding of the long-term nature of investment in milk production. This is not to say that the solutions can be painless, but they must take full account of the specific conditions of the sector.
The House will recall that for many years before milk quotas were introduced in 1984 British Ministers had argued strongly in Brussels for price restraint in order to bring milk production back into line with demand. I still believe that this would have been the best solution for the industry, particularly in the United Kingdom. Sadly, our partners in the Community in those days were unwilling to accept price cuts of the magnitude necessary to make the market work properly, and as a result quotas had to be brought in to stem the mounting surpluses.
Although the introduction of quotas gave rise to many problems, and to difficulties for many producers, the system was successful in reining in production. Whereas deliveries to dairies increased by 7·4 million tonnes m 1982 and 7·3 million tonnes in 1983, in the first quota year in 1984 there was a fall of 5 million tonnes. In fact, deliveries were 400,000 tonnes less than the total Community quota, but because milk production remained profitable and the levy penalty was too light, it soon became evident, after the quota system had begun to settle down, that there was a strong financial incentive on many producers to exceed their quotas. In the second quota year, 1985–86, the total Community quota was exceeded by around 900,000 tonnes. In the first six months of the third quota year, April to September 1986, it is estimated that deliveries were I per cent higher than in the same period of 1985.
I am glad to say that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) is now in his place, so two Liberal Members are present. There is still no SDP representation in the Chamber.
It is evident that milk production is still highly attractive to many farmers. This fact is demonstrated very clearly in England and Wales by the extremely high prices producers are offering for quota in connection with land transactions. Many hon. Members will have seen press reports of prices as high as 20p to 22p per litre, and in some cases as much as 26p per litre.
In the meantime, consumption of milk and milk products is stagnant. It is clear that, even with quotas in place, Community milk production subtantially exceeds all market outlets. The Commission has estimated the surplus at 9·5 million tonnes or 9·5 per cent. of production, and this is certainly no exaggeration. Indeed, it is based on the assumption that there will be a continuing high volune of subsidised exports and subsidised disposals on the Community's internal market. If these artificially created outlets are taken out of the equation, the House should remember that the surplus is now at least 20 per cent.
What this means is that the Community is offering milk producers very high prices in order to fill a quota which is far above what consumers are willing to buy. The result is that intervention stocks of butter have risen to 1·5 million tonnes and stocks of skimmed milk powder are about 1 million tonnes. The cost just of storing this surplus is currently running at about £1 million a day.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: With the cost running at £1 million a day, which is £365 million a year, has my


right hon. Friend estimated what the cost of storage will be if he is successful in reducing production in the United Kingdom by 9·5 per cent.?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend should realise that I am intent on reducing production throughout the Community and not only in the United Kingdom. We cannot have discrimination.
The present situation clearly cannot be allowed to continue. In its paper, No. 645 of 1986, the Commission has therefore proposed a two-pronged attack. In the first place it wants to tighten up on the quota system, both by direct and indirect means, and in the second place it wishes to reduce the attractiveness of the intervention system so as to make producers and traders bear some of the risks of the market, from which they are, at present, effectively insulated.
The United Kingdom has clear reservations about some of the methods that the Commission proposes, but we have to agree with its basic aim. We cannot dispute—as I do not believe anyone can rationally dispute—the need to reduce the size of the Comunity quota and to reduce the absolute security of the intervention system. The Commission is aiming to reduce milk production by 9·5 million tonnes. I think it reasonable to accept that this should be our target. Of the 9·5 million tonnes, 3 million tonnes is to be found by the quota cuts which the Council agreed in April this year—that is to say the 2 per cent. quota cut scheduled for 1 April 1987 and the further 1 per cent. that is scheduled for 1 April 1988. The Commission now proposes doubling these cuts to achieve a further 3 million tonnes reduction. I do not think that it is possible to dispute the logic of this, although I fully understand the difficulties that it will present to many producers.
Like some other member states, the United Kingdom sees merit in paying compensation at a reasonable level for all quota cuts. We shall be looking for changes in the arrangements for to quota cuts already scheduled, as these do not permit at the moment the payment of compensation for across-the-board cuts. This is one of many points where I guess there will be a great deal of discussions in Brussels before the Council eventually reaches a decision.

Mr. Michael Latham: First, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he has no intention of seeking any changes in the current marketing year? Secondly, will he assure me that he understands very well that any drastic measures would have a major ripple effect through the rest of agriculture? Does he agree that there is a need, therefore, for an overall policy statement from him on the future of British agriculture?

Mr. Jopling: I appreciate that. At the moment, cuts in quotas are not envisaged during the course of the current milk year—that is, the year from 1 April to 31 March. I am aware of the ripple effect, particularly in view of my meeting with farmers this morning at the Smithfield show. They firmly pointed out to me the effect of reduced milk quotas on the beef sector. That is particularly what my hon. Friend spoke about.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jopling: I really must continue. I shall not give way. This is a short debate, and I must make progress.
As well as these quota cuts totalling 6 million tonnes, the Commission proposes various changes in the rules of the quota system to produce a further reduction of 3·5 million tonnes. I fully understand why the Commission is suggesting this, but, however clear the need to cut production, we must be careful that the urgency does not push us into uncritically accepting every proposal that is put forward by the Commission. I have to say that I have serious doubts about some parts of this section of its proposals.
I have no great difficulty with the first of the changes that the Commission proposes. This is the abolition of the arrangements which allow quota undershoots in one region to be offset by the levy liability of other regions. That is known in the regulations as article 4a. This facility has been of some limited value to the United Kingdom in the first two quota years. It has been of considerably more value to other member states, but it was not part of the basic milk quota scheme as originally worked out. It was introduced during the first quota year as a temporary concession to enable the industry to adjust to the new system, and I do not believe we can quarrel with the ending of it.
The Commission's proposal to abolish what are known as formula B arrangements is much more difficult for us. The effect of formula B is that producers do not have to pay super levy unless the purchasing dairy which they supply is itself over quota. Even then, the amount per litre which producers have to pay is much less than the full rate, because quota unused by producers who undershoot their quotas is offset against excess production by those who overshoot. It is true, as the Commission points out, that this makes it more likely that national quotas will be fully used, but formula B was an integral part of the quota system agreed in March 1984. It brings a much-needed element of flexibility into a very rigid system, in that, within the area of any one Milk Marketing Board, it allows the evening-out of variations in supply between individual producers.
A major problem with any quota system is its inherent tendency to ossify the industry. We need to find ways of offsetting this tendency. One way that we have advocated from the start would be to allow the sale of quota separately from land, having due regard, of course, to the interests of landowners as well as milk producers themselves. Sadly, the Commission and other member states are not yet ready to go down this road. Therefore, in this context, we shall have to insist upon the retention of formula B. Many other member states feel the same as we do on this point.
The objective must be to get the total quota down to a reasonable level and to ensure that this new ceiling is respected, but within the new ceiling we should allow the operation of market forces to determine the development of the industry. It would not be wise to reduce the quota to a level still substantially higher than demand and then hope to rely on the rigidities in the system to ensure that production remains significantly below the ceiling.
As part of this strategy, I see a strong case for a substantial increase in the rate of super levy. The Commission's proposal on this point does not seem to be quite adequate, as it relates only to formula A. An increase for formula A and formula B would be appropriate.
In Brussels we shall be arguing that we should reduce quotas to bring them more into line with demand. I agree very firmly with those hon. Members who have said in the


past that changes of this sort must be made with full understanding of the time it takes to alter production patterns in agriculture. In discussing the proposals, and particularly in looking at the timing of their impact, I shall have very much in mind the need to look at the effect of the whole package on individual producers.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we introduce further quota reductions when we are only 75 per cent. self-sufficient in liquid milk we shall inevitably suck into this country additional liquid milk from the continent? How can that be good for this country or for our balance of payments? How can it be good to put our dairy farmers, who are not contributing to the annual surplus, out of business and automatically reduce their incomes?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend, for once, has not done his homework particularly well. He said that we were 75 per cent. self-sufficient in liquid milk. Of course, we are 100 per cent. self-sufficient in the liquid milk market, with the exception of that tiny amount, which is imported, of UHT and sterilised milk. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested in the latest figures which my Department has worked out. In 1985 the United Kingdom was 98 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat, which includes that part of our market reserved for New Zealand. If we exclude New Zealand—

Mr. Winterton: I do.

Mr. Jopling: We are 89 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat. In 1985 we were 112 per cent. self-sufficient in solids non-fat, the other element of milk. The two figures are 89 per cent. self-sufficient in home production of butter fat and 112 per cent. self-sufficient in solids non-fat. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the dairy industry. As he well knows, the composition of milk is roughly one part fat to two parts solids non-fat, so he will be able to work out the figures for himself.
In talking about quota cuts, I shall be insisting that they must apply equally in all member states. There is no basis for any member state, including the United Kingdom, to argue for special treatment, as the original allocation of quotas was very fair. It has been suggested that the United Kingdom could make a claim for special treatment on the basis that we do not produce all the milk products that we consume. It is important to bear in mind, however, that if we were to re-open that question, several member states could claim much more than we could. One major member state is not even able to supply its own liquid milk market in full, so it cannot be in our interests to pursue that line of argument. I shall therefore be insisting that the quota cuts should be by the same percentage for every member state.
Having achieved the cuts required, our firm aim should be to ensure that member states' total quotas are not exceeded. However, we should aim to permit the maximum possible flexibility between individual producers within the overall total.

Mr. Keith Best: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a wide disparity in the capacity of farmers in different parts of the United Kingdom to survive? I represent a part of Wales which was caned especially hard last time by the quotas. What does my right hon. Friend say to those farmers—one of whom has written to me saying that with 30 cows he is trying to live

on an income of £3,225 a year—who proved to the tribunals that they were living at subsistence level with the last imposition of quotas and who are now asked to take a further 9 per cent. reduction?

Mr. Jopling: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will recall that when the original quota system was put in place we paid particular attention to the needs of small farmers. I am sure that my hon. Friend has already pointed out to his constituents that, after the tribunals had done their work, we were able to take steps that brought virtually every small farmer—that is, farmers with fewer than 40 cows—back to the level of production, with quota, that they had had before the quota was introduced.
The second prong of the Commission's attack on the milk surplus is its proposal to restore the intervention system to its original function. Intervention was originally conceived as a safety net to protect producers and traders from market fluctuations. In recent years, however, that purpose has been perverted, and instead intervention has become a major outlet in its own right. During the first nine months of 1986 approximately 35 per cent. of all butter produced in the Community was bought into intervention. In the same period about 31 per cent. of skimmed milk powder production was also bought into intervention. That clearly cannot be allowed to continue.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. Friend's memory has let him down disastrously. Intervention was sold to the British farmer as a substitute for the deficiency payments system that we had before not to even out market fluctuations. My right hon. Friend cannot get away with that new theory, which purports to alter history.

Mr. Jopling: If I may argue with my hon. Friend, he will recall that he and I stood in the 1966 and 1970 general elections on the basis of a straight swap from the old-fashioned deficiency payments and guaranteed price system to a system based on import levies. That was the balance. The method of supporting the market by intervention was a separate matter and, although it was an integral part of the Community system, my hon. Friend would remember that in the original changeover it was the swap for import levies which was part of that.
The Commission is therefore proposing that permanent intervention for skimmed milk powder should be ended in the winter months. For skimmed milk powder during the summer, and for butter at any time of the year, it is proposed that the Commission should itself have the power to suspend intervention buying if the balance of the market can be guaranteed by other measures.
I see little difficulty for the United Kingdom in agreeing to these proposals for skimmed milk powder. Provided the price is right, it is possible to dispose of very large volumes of skimmed milk powder for inclusion in animal feedingstuffs. It makes little sense for intervention authorities to buy in large stocks of skimmed milk powder, store it for many months, and then sell it for animal feed. It would be far more logical for the powder to go direct from the manufacturer into animal feed with the help of a subsidy. It is even better if liquid skimmed milk can be sold direct for animal feed without first being converted into powder.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose——

Mr. Jopling: Provided the subsidy is sufficient to make the skim genuinely competitive with alternative proteins, I see no difficulty with that method of proceeding.
I do, however, have reservations about the Commission's proposals as regards butter intervention. Despite the intensive search which has been made, there is as yet no outlet capable of absorbing large volumes of butter, as there is for skimmed milk powder. That being so, I find it difficult to see precisely how the Commission intends to operate without intervention. I would very much like to be able to support the Commission on this point, as its objective is so obviously logical. So far it has not been able to give me the reassurance I would need, but I hope that it will be able to do so as the discussions proceed.

Sir Peter Mills: Has my right hon. Friend considered the serious affect that that would have on dairy milk factory workers? The Milk Marketing Board has said that it would probably have to close nine plants. As well as giving compensation to the farmer on the lost quota, what about the dairy workers too?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will understand that if one cuts milk production—we are no likely to cut the amount of milk going to the liquid market—that must inevitably mean that there will be less milk available for manufacturing. I do not know how many factories or industrial plants might be affected by whatever reduction might occur. That is a matter for the dairy trade, as it will clearly have implications.
With regard to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, I must stress that there is a statutory arrangement for redundancies. I know that many companies and the Milk Marketing Board have their own supplement to the normal basic redundancy arrangements. These applied during previous quota cuts. I have no announcement to make with regard to further redundancy arrangements other than those that are available for all industries.
In conclusion, I should like to stress that I fully understand that many hon. Members, producers and others in the dairy industry will have serious apprehensions about the proposals now under discussion in Brussels. I do not wish to deny that the effect of the proposal will be painful for many people.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose——

Mr. Jopling: There is no getting away from that fact, and I would be deluding the House if I pretended otherwise. However, I ask all hon. Members to realise that the difficulties that we are now facing are very largely the result of a failure in earlier years to take difficult decisions to prevent the position from deteriorating.

Mr. David Penhaligon: All thanks to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and his produce, produce, produce.

Mr. Jopling: Hon. Members should remember that successive Ministers from both Conservative and Labour Governments have continually warned the Council of Ministers of the folly of giving larger and larger price increases and encouraging more and more production.
The British Government have for many years stressed the dangers. Sadly, others were not prepared to heed the

signs, and when eventually action was taken in 1984, the new system had to be imposed much too quickly, causing serious difficulties for many producers.
I am determined that that mistake should not be repeated, and it is for that reason that I shall be pressing my colleagues in the Community to agree now to measures that can be introduced at a reasonable pace. Progress on that issue will be a priority for us at the meeting of the Council next week. Only once that nettle has been grasped will it be possible to remove the uncertainty that has plagued the milk sector for so long. Only then will it be possible for the industry to get on to a more stable footing for the future.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, may I say that many hon. Members have an interest in the debate, and I appeal for short contributions.

Mr. Brynmor John: I shall try to make a shorter speech than the Minister. First, I understand why, in the absence of any official text, the Minister has sought to bring the matter before us. I believe that to be able to debate this matter before negotiations take place is valuable to the House.
It must be said that the first approach to the dairy regime by the Ministers and the Commission has not been a success. Costs have continued to rise and stocks have also risen. We can put the matter into perspective by stating that this is the most costly of all the common agricultural policy regimes, commandeering about 30 per cent. of total agricultural spending. We have heard about Europe-wide stocks, but in this country stocks of butter have risen by a third in the past six months.
In April, the Commission, realising that something was going badly wrong, put forward a scheme whereby 3 per cent. was to be reduced from quotas until April 1989. Now, hardly six months later, it has doubled that figure and proposes to change the other quota rules which would effectively add another 3·5 per cent. minimum to the cuts—a total of 9·5 per cent. I put it to the Minister that changes of that magnitude can hardly be passed off as technical adjustments to a fundamentally sound scheme. We must be certain that, in building on that original scheme, we are building on a sound foundation and on a scheme that is fair to the United Kingdom. If not, we should re-examine the basics of the scheme. I know that the Minister is unwilling to re-examine the original agreement for fear that other countries might be nasty to him, but the inadequacies of that scheme owe a great deal to the Government's refusal to contemplate quotas up to and including the eve of the meeting at which they accepted them. The basic problems must be taken up again by the Government.
Were we allocated a satisfactory initial quota? The only parallels that we can take are other large CAP countries with comparable populations—France and the Federal Republic of Germany. The disparity is immediately obvious. France received a quota of 27 million tonnes, Germany 24 million tonnes, but the United Kingdom only 16 million tonnes. Again, the Government are to blame, but it may not be too late to rectify the matter. The disparity was caused by accepting 1981 as the base year rather than taking average production over a number of years. As 1981 was acknowledged to be a bad milk year


for this country, if everything continues to be built on that one year we shall pay for the initial blunder many times over.

Mr. Jopling: rose——

Mr. John: I am reluctant to give way, because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I will give way to the Ministers.

Mr. Jopling: I wish to make just two points. First, whether we chose 1981 or 1983 when the decision was taken in 1984 would have made a difference of about one-fifth of 1 per cent. in our national quota, so it was neither here nor there. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that we got a raw deal compared with other nations. The House may be interested to know that member states whose cutbacks were greater than ours at that time accounted for 42 per cent. of milk deliveries in 1983–84 and those with smaller cutbacks also accounted for 42 per cent., so we were exactly in the middle.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Which countries are contributing to the surplus?

Mr. John: I shall not intrude unnecessarily into that private grief, but I do not resile from my position. We did not get a raw deal in those negotiations. We got a bad deal, for which the right hon. Gentleman, despite his apologia, cannot escape responsibility.
Another point requires clarification. Responsible people in the dairy industry, including the Milk Marketing Board, which I imagine has sent a brief to most hon. Members present for the debate, consider the United Kingdom to be a deficit country in terms of production.

Mr. Winterton: That is right.

Mr. John: I have constructed an argument based on that deficit——

Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. John: You, Mr. Speaker, have appealed for brevity and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chicken!"] I am called "chicken", but if I give way and shut someone else out of the debate I shall be highly unpopular. I have given way to the Minister and I now propose to finish my speech. We can then hear some of the universal criticism of the Minister from the rebels on his own side.
The Milk Marketing Board believes that we are a deficit country. We need urgent clarification because, if that is so, we are the only large deficit country and that fact should be recognised in the negotiations, even though it was not taken into account at earlier stages. I understand that the smaller deficit countries obtained a special arrangement and naturally hope to continue it in years to come. We therefore fall between two stools in being a deficit country, but not a small one.
I was reassured to hear that the Minister would express outright opposition to formula B. I hope that it will be more outright than the occasion on which he said that milk quotas would not be introduced, except over his dead body. If formula B is abolished, instead of a 3·5 per cent. reduction in milk production over and above the 6 per cent., I believe that it will be between 4·5 and 5·5 per cent. In fact, compared with a European average of 9·5 per cent., our dairy production will be cut by about 10·5 or 11·5 per cent. As the Minister strongly suggested that he

believed in an equal cut across the board, I do not see how he could accept that. We shall have to look at the results of that negotiation very closely.
The Minister has said—we all realise it—that cuts in the dairy sector will have a dire effect on rural economies. Therefore, none of those cuts should be undertaken lightly. He made a valid point when he mentioned the horrifying nature of the budget. We currently have an agriculture budget which is estimated at 23 billion ecu for the coming year, with a projected overrun of a further 3 billion ecu. Those are enormous sums, and those who offer the prospect of no change in dairying hold out the cruellest deception of all. We must fight for the fairest quota system, but cuts in the budget will, and must, come.
That brings me to the milk outgoers scheme which, it is rumoured, exists on a voluntary basis in this country. I say "rumoured", because one would have to be pretty lucky to have met a farmer who has taken advantage of that scheme. As ever, the figures are shrouded in mystery. When I question the Minister he takes refuge in the number of applications or interested inquiries. However, I understand that the take-up figure for the voluntary outgoers scheme is between 10 and 100 throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. In any event, the number is miserably few.
The reasons are not hard to understand, given that farmers are offered 18·6p per litre over seven years, whereas milk quotas are being sold at an upper rate of 26p per litre.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Twenty-nine pence.

Mr. John: It may be 29p, but the Minister mentioned the upper limit of 26p. That has meant that people are using milk quota sales as a subsidy for a decent outgoers scheme. That cannot last for long, and with our knowledge of the Commission we know that it will not. We must therefore insist that as part of this package there should be a fair outgoers scheme that will recompense those who are leaving dairying. An estimate of 5,000 has been placed on the number of milk producers who will go out of production if these proposals go ahead. These people must be treated fairly, and so must those who are dependent on them, whether they work in creameries or directly on the farms.
The Minister has hidden behind the statutory redundancy schemes for far too long. He has said that there is some topping up. It was pointed out to him that these days very few employers top up the statutory schemes. In the case of coal and steel, the EEC has recognised that where structural change has taken place there ought to be special compensation. In my view, those who work in the creameries and on the farms who will be displaced as a result of these schemes ought to be so compensated.
Of course, the number depends on the dairy trade industry, but the estimate that I and other hon. Members have seen is about 2,000 jobs. These creameries are large employers in rural areas, where alternative work is simply not available. Recognition of this hardship must therefore be granted both by the Government and the EEC. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies.
I have set out what I believe the Government should be looking for in any negotiations. I wish the Government


well in such negotiations, because I do not believe that any Government, of whatever party, would wish to inherit a dairy industry that has been shattered. There are difficulties which must be faced, but those difficulties are increased because Agricultural Ministers are still tackling what is an across-the-board problem on a sector by sector basis.
We have heard something of the fears of other sectors of agriculture because of changes in the dairy industry. We are aware of the fears of the beef producers if the proposed changes to the dairy industry take place.
The CAP must be altered, not by palliatives but by a set of genuinely different measures which tackle and try to solve the whole problem without damaging the other sectors of agriculture. Above all, I believe that Agriculture Ministers must come to grips with the problem and shed their interminable delays. It is said that procrastination is the thief of time, but it is also the enemy of sensible solutions. I believe that the CAP badly needs those sensible solutions.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I do not believe that the proposals are simply about the future levels of milk production and dairy products in Europe or indeed Britain or even about the levels of income of individual dairy farmers—although such considerations are important. The proposals are not solely about the need to restrict the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy to an acceptable proportion of the total European budget.
In my view, there is a further and more fundamental dimension—the social and economic structure of the British countryside. That is what is at stake and what we should be worried about. I was saddened by the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). The Minister talked about possible lay offs purely in terms of the dairy trade. It is much more fundamental than that.
The Milk Marketing Board—I am associated with that body—has suggested that if these proposals were to be implemented in full—I know that my right hon. Friend has expressed reservations about that and I will return to it in a moment—approaching 5,000 dairy farmers could find themselves in jeopardy. Butter and skimmed milk production and manufacture would be down significantly. Possibly up to six or seven creameries might have to close involving 2,000 jobs based in rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West has already referred to the other adverse effects which may occur, and it is suggested that there would be a total loss of some £250 million from the rural economy. I find that depressing and frightening. I look to the Minister not only to provide us with assurance this evening but also, subsequently, to ensure that this assurance is backed by action in Brussels.
There is no argument about the fact that the upward trend of milk surpluses should be reversed, and that must involve some reduction in milk production. The Commission has proposed that, in addition to the 2 per cent. cut in milk production in this milk year and a 1 per

cent. cut in the following milk year, there should be an additional 3 per cent. milk quota reduction across the board. I do not object to that.
The Commission has also said that there should be a change in the rules and across the board in Europe, that would mean a reduction of some 3½ per cent. in production. But if that involved the abolition of the quota B scheme the net effect for Britain would be a reduction of at least 4½ per cent. possibly 5 per cent. as mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). That would be positive discrimination against the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tony Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are really talking about rural depopulation? That cannot be solved by taking or ***************not taking note of documents, but only by national action to promote our dairy farmers.

Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West expressed those sentiments.
The west country is essentially a livestock area, very dependent upon the smaller milk producers. We know of the contribution that the dairy sector makes to rural economies. No doubt other hon. Members—should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will make identical points.
I am also worried that the Commission appears to see the problem purely in terms of potential cuts. It is incumbent upon it to think in a more positive manner—otherwise the individual dairy farmer will derive little encouragement from and have little confidence in the future. If a similar position occurred, he could expect only further cuts.
Therefore, it is essential both for the Commission and my right hon. Friend as chairman of the Council of Ministers to come forward with more positive parallel suggestions, otherwise the smaller milk producer will be justified in thinking that he may have no future within the dairy industry. Will my right hon. Friend examine some parallel suggestions that I believe are worthy of consideration?
It is important to tackle the problem of the existing stocks—1·5 million tonnes of butter and more than 1 million tonnes of skimmed milk powder. Surely a mechanism is available to Europe to move that over a phased period to those countries in the Third world that need such products, and that could have or already has developed an infrastructure involving distribution and processing, so that they can, at least, take some of the surplus stocks.
Intervention accounts for 40 per cent. of the cost of the CAP, which is a total waste of financial resources. If we could remove that cost, we could look at the whole question of milk production in a more positive light.
The next point is generic advertising. We know that the United Kingdom is the only country that drinks at least 50 per cent. of its milk output. Other European countries have a much lower percentage. In the United States, demand for dairy products has increased by 12 per cent. since 1980, in part due to promotional activities.
We should look positively, and in a financially attractive way, at a policy of set-aside. It is important that the farmers are financially compensated. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that


that could be offset by a lower proportion of the budget of the CAP going to support intervention stocks. I hope that when my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels he will be prepared to consider that point—not only in the context of negative milk quota reductions, but by looking at the whole issue more positively.
I return to my central theme, which is that it is not just the CAP and the European budget that is at stake, but the future fabric of the British countryside as we know it.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I beg to move, at the end of the question to add,
'but calls on the Government to introduce measures to protect small dairy producers and those who face extreme financial hardship, while providing greater compensation for outgoers and those who work in ancillary industries, and to resist the abolition of Formula B quotas where Britain is concerned.'.
The Minister stated that there was crisis in the European Community budget caused by the over-production of milk. We certainly accept that analysis, but he must realise that by implementing these proposals he is party to wielding an axe on the British dairy industry, which is already in a state of crisis and reeling under it. That applies to dairy farmers and the dairy manufacturing sector alike. By so doing the Minister is also adding to the balance of payments deficit and wrecking the social fabric of the countryside and the rural economy.
Obviously, we must try to bring milk production into closer balance with consumption—[Interruption.]—but are the Government going about it the right way? We doubt it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will tell hon. Members later in my speech. At present according to Milk Marketing Board figures, Britain is 91 per cent. self-sufficient in milk and dairy products. Only Italy and Britain are not self-sufficient. What is one to make of Ireland which is 264 per cent. self-sufficient, of Denmark which is 224 per cent. self-sufficient, or the Netherlands——

Mr. Speller: Would 100 per cent. self-sufficiency mean that one could neither export nor import? Self-sufficiency within a club is a meaningless figure.

Mr. Livsey: Considering the severity of the crisis facing Britain that is an academic point.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Livsey: I will not give way. I have already given way and I have not much time.
In 1984 our cut was one of the most swingeing at minus 6·2 per cent. When that is compounded with the base year of 1981, which was a bad year, these proposals contrive to hit the industry below the belt when many dairy farmers are on the ropes and some are taking the count. Since 1984, 1,500 dairy farmers have gone out of business and 7,000 employees' jobs have been lost in the dairy industry. That has been a disaster for the western and northern grassland producing areas, particularly Wales and Scotland.
In the county of Dyfed, 18 per cent. of the population depends on agriculture for its living. That is almost identical to the percentage of the population dependent on it in Ireland. Many are dairy farmers. Creameries have been shut and farmers have being going out of business. For those who remain the going is increasingly tough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can understand why Tory Members are so anxious about the situation: their Minister has caused their anxieties.—[interruption.]
From an ADAS report the Minister must know that in Dyfed 25 per cent. of dairy farmers are financially insecure, 7 per cent. are threatened now with bankruptcy and 37 per cent. have serious financial problems. Therefore, 60 per cent. of the dairy farms in Dyfed are under threat. [Interruption.] Machinery manufacturers have had to close and agricultural merchants have made lasting cuts. Many small dairy farms are unviable, and 200 farms on the county council smallholding estate in Devon are in jeopardy as a result of further proposed cuts in quota. If a further 3 per cent. cut in quota is implemented, a total quota reduction of 6 per cent. will result.
We oppose the abolition of formula B quotas because, although it would cut quotas in the EEC as a whole by 2 per cent., it would affect England and Wales by minus 5 per cent. Therefore, we would lose out by a further 3 per cent. in quota compared with elsewhere. That will hit Britain most unfairly indeed.
I and the Minister know that France and Ireland are resisting the abolition of B quotas and I am pleased to hear him say this evening that he is also against B quotas being abolished in Britain. [Interruption.] I trust that those Conservative Members who are so noisy will assist us in the Lobby tonight to stiffen the Minister's resolve and ensure that B quotas will not be lost for Britain.
The estimated consequences of the full EEC proposals could result, as has been said, in a possible 5,000 further dairy farmers going out of production. The figures have already shown that that would have a devastating——

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Boring.

Mr. Livsey: I may be boring, but I am sure that it will make for an exciting election.
This would be a devastating blow for our rural areas and the proposals tonight are inevitably pushing us in that direction. Before taking such severe steps the Minister should do his own calculations. The knock-on effect on the rural areas socially will be immense and there will also he a knock-on effect in the beef sector. It has been estimated that if the full weight of the EEC proposals come in there could be a further additional production of 600,000 tonnes of beef in a market that is already swamped with that product.
We must get production and consumption in balance. We agree with the Minister on that, but he must proceed with caution and sensitivity. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I demand a hearing.
We must positively identify the small dairy producers and certainly protect from further cuts those producing 250,000 litres per annum and less—[HON. MEMBERS: "How? Tell us."] We must give them direct payments to assist them in their incomes without additional production. [Interruption.] That proposal will not increase surplus production. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will listen to what I am saying, they will hear that I am putting forward positive proposals.
We must identify producers facing extreme financial hardship and assist them, too. We must have a vastly improved outgoers scheme. We have heard that few producers have taken that up and we must at least pay the current quota sale price rate. We must introduce a scheme for cow purchase at much more attractive prices than in the market at present to get more cows out of production. That can be done over a short period.
We must, as has already been said, sell out more of our dairy stocks. Why cannot pensioners in Britain, for example, share more of the surplus butter that we have in our stores? We must have a crash scheme of destocking into some of the poorer countries, and that should be linked to developments in their own agriculture. We must also give incentives to New Zealand to market its product elsewhere than in the EEC. There are opportunities in the far east and we must encourage it to market there. The EEC should accept responsibility to give incentives to do that.
The alliance has tabled an amendment and—[Interruption.]—judging by the furore created by Conservative Members, they will not support the amendment in the Lobbies tonight and their words about the destruction of the rural economy will prove to be empty indeed.

Mr. Paul Marland: rose——

Mr. Livsey: I shall not give way.
The rural areas are watching Conservative Members carefully. I plead with the Minister not to abandon those areas. Their future is already in the balance, and if the Government do not act sensitively, they will stand condemned in the dock. The rural areas, and especially the western dairy-producing and grassland areas, will lose tremendously, which will be a great tragedy.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I must confess my astonishment, on reading through the documents that purport to be those that we are debating, to see them innocent of any mention of the effect on beef production. The document in the name of Lord Belstead contains a section entitled "Policy Implications", but one reads through that section in vain to find anything about beef. The same is true when one reads through the EEC document in the name of Mr. Lorenzo Natali. Were the people who wrote those documents wholly unaware of the collapse which these proposals would produce in the beef market?
When milk quotas were introduced, it was feared that there would be a greater rush of culled cows on to the beef market than occurred. The reason was that a large proportion of milk producers went from a high concentrate feeding system to a low concentrate feeding system, but that slack has now been taken up, so a reduction of 9, 9·5 or 10 per cent. in milk quotas will inevitably result in a rush of about that proportion—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may have the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The debate, of which less than an hour remained for the Back Benchers, is about the future of our dairy industry and our beef industry. Perhaps that is not too long a time to hold their attention.
The reduction will affect not only milk producers and their investment, which they were encouraged to make under successive Governments, but beef production, which is only marginally profitable, it at all. Collapse the market with the sort of proposals suggested by the EEC, and there will be devastation. Of course, it will not be limited to beef production. What will people do with their grassland? They will go into sheep, and we shall have the

collapse of the sheepmeat economy. We cannot collapse those two sections of the foodmarket—that is what it is—without a knock-on effect on pigs and poultry, because they are the alternative meats to beef. Poultry is certainly the alternative today.
How is it possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister to address the House on these measures without taking the House into his confidence and explaining his thinking about how he will deal with the consequences of such a policy? The EEC could end up paying far more money for the support of beef, sheep and pigs because it starts with a foolish policy—foolish not in the total quantities necessarily, but in the time span over which they are implemented. Producers say, "Give us time to adjust." It is precisely that which the Community's proposals are so obviously denying.
The Community must have an overall agricultural policy. So must we. If we squeeze just one commodity at a time, the effect will be to destroy the whole balance and the rest of the agricultural economy. That, in a nutshell, is the problem to which my right hon. Friend has not addressed himself in the House, but to which he must address himself in Brussels.
It seems that my right hon. Friend cannot or will not bring home those truths to the Commission, including the foolish Mr. Pooley, the second in command of the Commission's bureaucrats, who was shooting his mouth off in Devon last week. He referred to 25,000 dairy farmers getting employment in the electronics industries. None of us happen to have noticed electronics industries in the rural areas waiting to take 25,000 farmers. It is that sort of dangerous nonsense upon which my right hon. Friend is relying for executing the EEC's policy and, indeed, for drawing it up.
While Britain is in the Chair, until the end of this month, my right hon. Friend's prime ambition must be not to make short-term savings at the cost of long-term devastation, but to bring home to the bureaucrats, as well as to the Council of Ministers, the inter-reactions within the totality of agriculture. That must be his task. A debate of 55 minutes for Back Benchers is not long enough for my right hon. Friend to persuade the House, which he has not yet started to do, that he is even aware of it, let alone that he will make it his business to instruct the Community in these basic facts of life.
I do not believe that many of my hon. Friends will be able to contribute to what must be said in this debate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is making remarks from a sedentary position. Had he been in the House a little longer, he would have some slight understanding of its procedures, but that he still lacks. He would know that if there is a vital question—which this is—and that if many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and the time for it is ludicrously short, it lies within the power of the Chair to refuse to put the Question when the hour for the closure of the debate comes.
Although I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that there are many other hon. Members who still have a duty to contribute to the debate. It must continue on another day this week, in prime time. It must not be allowed just to meander into the ground at 11.30 tonight.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I came here this evening to ask the Minister a few simple questions. How can he conceivably justify to the small farmers in my constituency, many of whom on the Cheshire plain were brought close to bankruptcy last year by the imposition of completely unacceptable quotas, the suggestion that he will now apply an even more unacceptable blow to their already straitened finances? I must also ask him a question which to me is politically much more important.
I listened with amazement to other hon. Members who argued that we ought to subscribe to an agricultural policy that was a manifest "con" when we joined the Common Market, and that has not improved since then. I leave aside the irony that the Milk Marketing Board was created in the 1920s, when a Conservative Government had contributed to the destruction of British agriculture—something which we see being repeated this evening.
I shall ask the Minister some simple questions. First, if the Commission and the Council of Ministers do not accept the reservations that he has expressed this evening about the suggested imposition of extra quotas—these quotas are entirely unacceptable and deeply unfair—what will he do to protect the interests of our agriculture? As he no longer has the veto, will he return to the House and tell us that, having taken account of the views of the other member states, he is sad to say that, like the good democrat that he is, he has had to give way to other pressures and to those who outvoted him? If not, what alternative national rule does he intend to apply? What alternative opposition scheme does he have to put to the Commission that will provide sufficient money for the farmers who want to join an outgoers scheme and begin to deal with the real problems in our creameries?
Just outside my constituency 100 men and women are losing their jobs. That is happening now. The reason is not that they were inefficient or that the creamery was doing a bad job. In fact, the creamery had been returning an increasing profit over the past 12 months. They are losing their jobs because of the mad, Alice-in-Wonderland, incomprehensible rubbish that is called the common agricultural policy.
Let the Minister answer one question. If the Minister's reservations, which he has so modestly put before the House this evening, are not accepted by those in Brussels, what will he do for British farmers, farm workers and creamery workers? Are we to take it that this is a cynical demonstration of how to win votes in the rural areas, on the assumption that the dairy farmers will not even notice that their next step is the bankruptcy court?

Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is the duty of hon. Members who represent rural constituencies to try to participate in this brief debate on an extremely important subject. I shall begin by establishing the common ground, which is that the Community is over-producing dairy and agricultural products generally to the tune of 9·5 per cent. I shall try to cut a swathe through the plethora of figures which have confused us this evening and to spell out in clear terms what the proposals will mean for the dairyland and grassland areas on the western side of Britain.
We are all aware that something must be done to curb production throughout Europe, but Britain is not

contributing to the surplus in dairy products. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of many of our European neighbours. We are being branded with them when we should not be, which is entirely unjust. To attempt to cut production in Britain by 10·5 or 11 per cent. is disproportionate and unjust. To do so would be unfair to the United Kingdom, and we should not he contemplating doing so this evening or later.
We are not yet self-sufficient in liquid milk annually, and the House should remember that we consume 44 per cent. of our milk production in liquid milk sales. West Germany and France consume only 11 per cent. and 9 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Winterton: No, I will not.
The House will know that 29 per cent. of our milk production goes into butter making, compared with 46 per cent. in West Germany and 49 per cent. in France. We are a net importer of butter, as all hon. Members will be aware. Last year, we imported 139,000 tonnes of butter, of which 78,000 tonnes came from New Zealand under our quota agreement with that country. In fact, if that butter had not come into the country, we would not have contributed to the butter mountain. No butter from this country would have gone into intervention.
If the present proposals are agreed, we will force our own farmers to cut back. We will force them out of business to enable the likes of the south of Ireland, France, West Germany and others to make assaults upon our own market, which is the only major one in deficit. Whatever cuts are agreed within Europe, they must not put our producers at a further comparative disadvantage. To revive a modicum of confidence in the industry, the cuts must be seen to be fair and equitable. Some hon. Members reminded the House that, as a direct result of the imposition of quotas, about 7,000 dairy industry jobs have been lost since 1984. Several thousand jobs have also been lost in ancillary industries, and about 1,500 dairy farmers went out of business.
What could we expect if this package were passed unamended? It is likely that the western areas of the country will be decimated. They will suffer greatly as the rural economy, which is based on agriculture, declines even further. The Milk Marketing Board estimates that 5,000 more milk producers may go out of business. There will be further job losses in creameries. In that respect I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). In my constituency, 112 jobs were lost in the closure of a whey factory at Haslington.
As our manufacturing capacity falls to approximately 40 per cent., many jobs in creameries will be lost. Who would dare at this stage to estimate the knock-on effects on allied industries when we consider that, for every job in agriculture, there are at least three jobs at stake in the allied trades. Having faced up to this sad and tragic but realistic picture, what can be done to help to solve the problems and cover the cost of storing more than just sufficient, strategic food reserves?
For example, the present butter mountain could be reduced by approximately one third by reprocessing some of the older stocks, which are becoming unfit for human consumption, and using them in other ways. Certain developing countries would be prepared to relieve us of a further one third of butter stocks, and that would save storage costs.
Difficult but necessary decisions must be made, as in any other business, to clear away the old stocks, while preventing their build-up and balancing their supply and demand in future. Agricultural policy must take the long-term view not just react sharply to the present crisis, thereby causing as many new problems as those that it attempts to solve. For example, the cow cull—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned this matter—resulted from the imposition of quotas and distorted the beef market. The fewer the livestock, the fewer cereals that are consumed. The knock-on effects continue throughout the agriculture industry.
The Minister must be seen to fight for the best interests of our industry, not just settle for the sake of a settlement within the Council of Ministers. I welcome his commitment to the flexibility of balancing quotas between producers under formula B. We all know that without this balance we shall be further disadvantaged. We must soon face the fact that if we have to choose between the survival of New Zealand farmers and our own, we must support our own; we must supply our own market and not suck in any more imports.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: We have noted the incredible phenomenon that there has been no speech from the Government Back Benches supporting the Government's line. We shall see the equally incredible phenomenon that no Conservative Back Bencher will have the courage of his convictions when it comes to the Division. I support the alliance amendment because my prime concern is the knock-on effect on agriculture.
I am appalled that there has not been a single Welsh Office Minister or Welsh Office civil servant anywhere near this debate. Once again we are seeing the failure of the Welsh Office and its agricultural department. The Welsh Office has taken no role in the formulation of agricultural policy. The Secretary of State for Wales has never represented Wales in Brussels. Clearly, the Welsh Office has abdicated its responsibility for the future of Welsh agriculture. The Welsh Office attendance contrasts with the presence of at least one representative from the Scottish Office earlier in the debate.
We have already suffered, especially in Dyfed, from the social effects of the quota system. We have seen redundancies in milk production, with self-employed farmers going out of business. The incredible report by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which was half-published last week, shows that as many as 25 per cent. of farms in Dyfed are thought by ADAS and the banks to be financially insecure. It is a deepening crisis for those involved in the industry.
The knock-on effects have included redundancies. I was appalled to hear the Minister, in replying to a question about redundancies, just cite redundancy schemes. He does not seem to understand the social effects of the loss of jobs and of production, and all that they imply for the manufacturing base, which is already thin enough, in rural areas.
I emphasise the social effects of the quota system, including redundancies, and the Government's failure to tackle the issues and ensure that they have an input in Community policy which takes account of the real needs

of people in the west of Britain. I endorse all that has been said by Conservative Members, and I appeal to them to support the amendment.

Mr. Paul Marland: It was hypocritical of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), when going on about the plight of the dairy farmers and the small farmers, to forget completely that the Liberals on Gloucestershire county council have passed a resolution to rate agricultural land and buildings. The hon. Gentleman's argument would have been more convincing if he had said something about that.
Although this is only a short debate, it is obviously one on which the eyes of dairy farmers will be focused, because there is no doubt that it may set future trends. There is not a dairy farmer in Europe who does not recognise the problem of overproduction that our Ministers are facing. This is highlighted by some figures and facts that we have already heard in this debate.

Mr. Clement Freud: Who wrote that?

Mr. Marland: I did. However, this is a recent problem, and recognition must still be given to the fact that until 1983 farmers were being urged by politicians to continue producing as much as they could. Although the initial impact of quotas has now been more or less digested by farmers, it takes time to change direction and develop new enterprises. It is with the need for new enterprises in mind that I cannot agree with the Commission's proposals that there should be no new transfers between direct sales and wholesale quotas. We must do all that we can to help farmers find new outlets and leave open all possible opportunities. In the same vein, I cannot agree with the scrapping of the formula B quota system. Mother nature and mother cow are very temperamental animals and, with the best will in the world, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to hit a 100 per cent. target when budgeting.
While urging more flexibility in fulfilling quotas, I accept that the Milk Marketing Board must demonstrate the same quality of flexibility. Last weekend, in Gloucestershire, we heard that 60 per cent. of the Milk Marketing Board's butter produced last year had been put into intervention, yet at the same time it had apparently won a contract for supplying cheese and was unable to get the milk to manufacture that cheese. Why was the Milk Marketing Board not flexible enough to switch the milk from one form of production to another?
I approve of the drive to achieve quota reduction by voluntary means and welcome the Commission's suggestion that more money should be made available to extend the outgoers scheme. I believe that that, along with some topping up by my right hon. Friend the Minister, will produce many more volunteer outgoers than any of us might imagine. In my constituency I have seen it working in other industries, and it has been surprising to those running the industries how many volunteers have come forward when they have been necessary. Voluntary reductions are in everybody's best interest.

Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that not a single person in Wales has applied for the outgoers scheme because it is so farcical at the moment because it is not being topped up as it is in other countries?

Mr. Marland: That is a helpful intervention. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] It adds fuel to what I am saying. Voluntary reductions are obviously in everybody's best interests.
I have scorned the co-responsibility levy in the past as a method of trying to reduce output. It seems to be a ridiculous way to go about it. As other hon. Members have said tonight, we are discussing the balance of the whole market, and it is the whole market which will be in the balance in the future. I ask my right hon. Friend to approach any further quota reductions in the light of what has gone on before in the United Kingdom, in order to achieve fairness for the United Kingdom in the future.
Whatever may be said, it is the impression of British farmers that they got off to a bad start in the setting of dairy quotas when 1981 was taken as the base year. We are led to believe, at least I am, that the United Kingdom dairy industry's annual output that year was 3·5 per cent. below the previous five-year average. However, 1981 was a good year for French and German dairy farmers. Therefore, the United Kingdom farmers started off, as they see it, with a proportionately bigger cut than others. The same vagaries of weather and difficulties of production can be seen with cereal production this year in the United Kingdom. British farmers have done so much better than those in southern France and Spain.
If that low start is looked at in the context of supply to home markets, which was discussed earlier in the debate, we see that Holland over-produced to its home market by 307 per cent., and Eire over-produced to its home market by 223 per cent. However, we under-produced to our home market by supplying only 88 per cent. of the home market needs. To put it mildly, that makes the Gloucestershire farmers stamping mad. I believe that a reduction in export support mechanism may well help us to fulfil our home market.
Of course, marketing still needs to be improved and more opportunities for selling milk need to be created. On the subject of finding new outlets, it is interesting to note that, in the rapidly growing fast food business, McDonald's Hamburgers Ltd. last year sold 2·5 million gallons of flavoured milk. In addition, it processed 115,000 beef cattle and made them into beef patties. That seems an enormous number of beef patties, but that is what we are told.
It is widely accepted that production cuts have to be made, but the British farmer wants to see fairness; fairness in the fact that we got off to a low start and that we are under-supplying our own market. There will be a crisis in the countryside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall. South-East (Mr. Hicks) has already said, unless we can get it right.
On his return from Brussels, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to keep up his long-lasting fight on behalf of British farmers, for which in the past, in many respects, he has not had the credit due to him. He should not allow it always to be the French, German or Irish Ministers who stick their toes in. We have a good case this time, and I ask my right hon. Friend to go to it with a vengeance.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) put a proposition to the

House earlier. Bearing in mind the interest in the subject, he asked whether you would allow the debate to be resumed on another day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman is taking up valuable time. I shall decide at 11.30.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I shall first tell the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that I believe that the question of deficit is made much more difficult by the fact that last year we put 92,000 tonnes of butter into intervention. That means that we were not even able to sell that butter, no matter what the deficit figures make out. The deficit figures show that quite clearly. Today I visited a Tesco store and I discovered that we were still selling our butter more cheaply than Anchor, Lurpak and Wheelbarrow. However, the housewife does, on occasion, choose to buy someone else's butter. Unless we are prepared to state that she shall not have that choice, we must accept that 92,000 tonnes of butter—30 per cent. of our present production—is going to intervention. In those circumstances, I must say that the argument for self-sufficiency is difficult to sustain.
I clearly accept the point that we have to fight extremely hard for Britain's interests. Several of our interests would not be served by the proposals set before us today. They are presented in draft form and we are having the debate properly, before the negotiations have begun. It is right that we should take full notice of the points that have been raised and that is why the Government have allowed the opportunity for this debate.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), who made it clear that he is not prepared to accept that the formula B should be removed. That point was also made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, I do not think that it is possible to go on to say that there is some simple way of getting rid of existing stocks unless those stocks are not refilled. It is not sufficient to claim that the stocks can simply be removed. As the Opposition conceded, there is no simple way of emptying the warehouses and expecting them to stay empty unless there is a method of bringing the supply of dairy products more into line with demand.
That is why I thought that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) deserved the question that was asked of him. It is all very well to list the difficulties and refer to the problems, but how will the hon. Gentleman solve those problems?

Mr. Penhaligon: My hon. Friend told the Minister how he would do that.

Mr. Gummer: I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and I was lucky enough to read his comments in his speech to the Farmers Union of Wales, when he explained what he would do. He said that there would be a standard quantity of production which, if applied, would mean a sharper cut in the real quota than anything proposed by the Commission today. The House should be aware that that is the Liberal party policy in so far as that is comprehensible from the speech made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. The hon. Gentleman went on to complain that 2,145 dairy


farmers had gone out of production during the past two years. He did not mention the fact that the average for each of the two preceding years was 3,593. The hon. Gentleman has fudged the figures yet again. I notice that the party that was just as enthusiastic about our membership of the European Community, is now ratting on all the results of the movements that it supported.
I have much more respect for the position adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who at least attempted to put forward an alternative series of propositions which the House must take seriously. Of course we cannot deal with the problem unless we deal with the time-span within which it can be resolved. That is why my right hon. Friend made very clear his strong reservations about the proposition that the package should be adopted without reference to a time-span and stressed the need for arrangements to help farmers as individuals and not to treat them as figures on a balance sheet.
I also agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton about the whole policy for agriculture. That is why this presidency has insisted that the debate in Europe during next weeks' discussions will be about beef, milk and about structures following together, one after the other. It is impossible to discuss these matters without covering them all.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was long on complaints but short on answers. That was a typical speech from the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) must consider what will happen to the stock if the amount going back into intervention is increased. The Government would not be prepared to forget what the New Zealanders have done for us in two world wars and we are not prepared to cut off this market.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Two propositions are clearly true: first, that many hon. Members still wish to contribute to the debate and, secondly, that the subject is not one of passing importance but is one which goes to the heart of the survival of one of Britain's industries. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, on the precedents, you would be amply justified in declining to put the Question so that the debate can be continued—[Interruption.] Some Members may not wish the debate to continue, but many others do. I believe that the greatest service to the House would be to allow the debate to be resumed on another day.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been limited in time. Not one hon. Member has spoken who does not represent an agricultural area. Surely the interests of all the parties involved, including the taxpayer, should be voiced. Could we not have one further short debate so that we may hear at least one Conservative Member support Government policy?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who has

made a most enlightened contribution to the debate. Many of us represent constituencies of which vast parts depend entirely on the dairy industry. It does the House no good if those with such an important contribution to make are not able to speak on an important matter such as this.

Mr. Best: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I endorse what my hon. Friends have said in urging you to allow time for further debate as a considerable number of hon. Members have not had a chance to take part. As many hon. Members have said, this is a matter of critical importance to the small farmer and to rural existence.
I am also in some confusion because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has told us that the proposals are not satisfactory——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the issues.

Mr. Latham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you were to postpone the end of the debate for a few minutes it might allow the two Social Democratic party Members whose names appear on the amendment to come to the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has raised an important issue which I have considered very carefully indeed. As he knows, however, Standing Order No. 14 is very clear. I have to decide whether the debate should be adjourned or whether to put the Question. I intend to put the Question.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 103.

Division No. 13]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Patchett, Terry


Ashdown, Paddy
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Pike, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Wallace, James


Freud, Clement



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Richard Livsey and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


NOES


Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ground, Patrick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, J.


Cope, John
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Durant, Tony
Hirst, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Fallon, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Forth, Eric
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Freeman, Roger
Key, Robert


Gale, Roger
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knowles, Michael


Gow, Ian
Latham, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gregory, Conal
Lightbown, David






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Spencer, Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Major, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steven
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pollock, Alexander
Wolfson, Mark


Powley, John
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Michael Portillo and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Francis Maude.


Sackville, Hon Thomas

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 25.

Division No. 14]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cope, John
Harris, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Hayes, J.


Durant, Tony
Hayward, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Fallon, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jackson, Robert


Forth, Eric
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Freeman, Roger
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Gale, Roger
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Gow, Ian
Key, Robert


Gower, Sir Raymond
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)





Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Lyell, Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Stern, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Major, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mather, Carol
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Norris, Steven
Wiggin, Jerry


Pollock, Alexander
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powley, John
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Gerald Malone.


NOES


Alton, David
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Beith, A. J.
Patchett, Terry


Best, Keith
Penhaligon, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Pike, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Wallace, James


Freud, Clement
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop


Kennedy, Charles
and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.


Kirkwood, Archy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9161/86 concerning emergency measures in the dairy sector, the Commission proposals described in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum of 18th November on the same subject and the Government's intention to seek agreement on arrangements to bring production in the milk sector into closer balance with consumption.

Orders of the Day — A525 (Redesignation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Garet-Jones.]

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The A525 is a road that forms an east-west primary route link between Madeley and Newcastle under Lyme and Stoke on Trent in the east, and Burleydam, Whitchurch and Wrexham in the west. It passes through the village of Audlem in my constituency.
I wish tonight to tell the House about what can only be called a series of accidents. I raise the matter precisely because I am considerably concerned that there might be an accident in the middle of the village. For some time the people of this ancient village have been concerned about a narrow footpath on one side of the church. It is difficult enough at the best of times, and, because the A525 can carry heavy traffic, there is a real danger that the mothers and children who frequently use the path—it is the only way to go from one part of the village to the local shops—will inevitably be faced with the hazard of an articulated lorry mounting the pavement. That happens, not occasionally but with increasing frequency.
In bringing the subject before the House tonight I am fulfilling one of the basic purposes of Members of Parliament. This route, which is part of the Department of Transport's primary route network, is covered by three county councils—Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire. Tonight I am concerned with the length of road covered by Cheshire. The road links to the M6 and has been known to carry a considerable volume of heavy traffic for its weight and certainly for its size. One of the traffic counts in November 1985 in Shropshire street—the narrow part of the village—showed 2,050 vehicles in a 12-hour period. We must set aside the fact that it is an old village. The main categories of vehicles were heavy lorries.
My predecessor in the constituency and members of the parish council in Audlem were so concerned that they asked the county council to deal with the problem. I am sorry that for various reasons the villagers did not accept the route which would have provided them with a bypass. As often happens on these occasions, once such an opportunity is missed, the matter goes to the bottom of the pile. When I took over responsibility for the constituency, it became clear to me on my monthly visits to the village to hold my surgery that the narrow footpath posed a real danger to mothers and children who used it. It is about 1·6m wide and even narrower at some points. Indeed, some houses on Stafford street, which are occupied by retired constituents, are so close to the articulated lorries that they are being damaged and their occupants have the constant noise of lorries thundering past only a short distance from their windows.
I asked Cheshire county council to find some way of dealing with this immediate difficulty. Originally, a northern extension had been considered. It would have provided a bypass, would have linked Shropshire street and the A529 Cheshire street and required a certain amount of demolition. That was rejected. We considered a southern outer bypass scheme, which might have been a responsible answer, but it was very expensive—an estimated £1·5 million. Over the years the constant talks between the parish council and the county council made

it clear that either Audlem would be pushed to the bottom of the list for so long that it would have to wait up to 30 years or it would have to go for some other more immediate, but perhaps less adequate, answer.
One suggestion was that we should ask for the route to be changed and its designation to be entered in a different fashion. Therefore, after talking to the parish councillors, I approached the Minister and explained the difficulty of dealing with three county councils when, almost automatically, if one county council agreed the other two found the solution unacceptable. I asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to come and look at the road himself or to call together all the county councillors, but preferably to do both. Were the Minister to see this hazard he would understand why it is a matter that goes will beyond straightening out a particular road traffic problem in a small village.
However, the Minister felt that would not be possible. He sent me a letter, in which he said:
I am aware of the problems created by heavy traffic…the fact remains that the A525 through Audlem is the responsibility of Cheshire Council Council…and it is for them to initiate measures to relieve the community of traffic nuisance.
He went on to say:
Cheshire have suggested that the A525 should be removed from the Primary Route Network but I do not think that that action would provide an answer.
He said that the A525 would remain a direct route and that everyone would still use it. If people were no longer signposted that way, only those who knew that route existed or who read maps before they commenced their journey—they are a small proportion of the electorate—would automatically go that way.
However, the Minister said:
have already written to Cheshire County Council…and have offered them the services of the Department's North West Regional Office…if they wish to explore further the possibility of a bypass.
The Minister knows that the money for that has to be forthcoming from somewhere and he also knows that Cheshire has already committed all its money to those schemes which it thinks are far more serious and urgent. That does not solve the problem for people in Audlem, and it certainly does not solve the problem for the mums and the children.
The parish council sent me a copy of the letter that it sent to the Minister which said that it was
most concerned that you"—
the Secretary of State—
are not prepared to remove the length of the A525 from Woore, Shropshire to Burleydam, Cheshire, from the Primary Route Network. As a result of your decision, a serious and potentially dangerous problem still exists in Audlem with heavy vehicles passing through the centre of the village and mounting footpaths. The Parish Council would ask you to reconsider the matter, and, if de-priming cannot take place, would ask that urgent consideration should be given to an outer village by-pass.
It, too, would like to see the Minister in the village looking at the difficulties.
The expansion of the roads programme over the past two or three years under this Government has gone, almost without exception, into the motorway system. A great deal of money has been spent on the road pattern. Indeed, the imbalance between the amounts of money spent on motorways and comparable forms of transport—for example, the railways—is most marked.
One reason why democracy, particularly British democracy, has existed for so long is that the problems of


small groups of people are considered sufficiently important when raised in the House to be looked at seriously and with care. If that means bringing together representatives of three county councils and seeking an agreement to have this route classification changed, I would hope that the Minister would find time in his busy life to do that very thing.
The Minister knows that Cheshire county does not have at its disposal the money to create an alternative bypass and that we know this to be a real problem. I remind him that as an elected representative I do not want to be responsible for the death of one child if there is anything that I can do to stop the traffic problems in this village which constantly concern all those who have children and who use that footpath.
The Minister is a kind and considerate man and I ask him seriously tonight, if he will not come himself, to make sure that at least one of his representatives pays close attention to the matter. He should not come to the Dispatch Box and say, "This is a matter not for me but for other elected representatives." When the House of Commons ceases to be prepared, at midnight, to discuss important measures which affect the families and children of Audlem, the House will have lost one of its most important, potent and dearly protected rights—the simple right to care about the villagers and their traffic problems.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I welcome the debate, because it allows me to spell out one of the differences between our present parliamentary system and the system which the absent Members of the Liberal party and the SDP would wish to foist on Britain of multi-Member large constituencies, where no single Member would represent a village, street or estate. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) does her constituents a service by raising their problems here. Our electoral system is not perfect, but it is highly desirable to have one Member to one constituency.
One sensible point made by the hon. Lady was that the villagers of Audlem did not take the relief when it was available. It is critical—I hope that this message goes out to every one of the 650 constituencies—to have through roads for through traffic, so that there can be a partial exclusion of traffic and an emphasis on residence in other areas. There was a time when it appeared to be fashionable in some areas to say that we did not need road building. The plain truth, as the hon. Lady said, is that we do. We do not wish to cover the country with concrete, but in an historic village, town or even part of a city where people are exposed to danger because of through traffic, that through traffic should be put on a safe through road, whether single or dual carriageway. Whatever the standard, people and traffic do not mix. The hon. Lady mentioned the problems with the narrow pavement by the church. Everyone in the House will have recognised the sincerity with which she made her points.
Towards the end of her speech the hon. Lady said that she would not want the responsibility for continuing danger. I hope that no one would. I have said before that, in the days of capital punishment, the Home Secretary had to make fewer decisions over life and death than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport must make week after week and month after month. We

know that the way in which money is spent on road improvements affects people's chances of injury or death. Each year we could fill the Royal Albert Hall with the more than 5,000 people who die on our roads, and we could fill Wembley three times over with those who are injured. It is important to get the hierarchy of roads right and ensure that money is spent to the best advantage for employment prospects, for casualty reduction and for protecting the environment. Protecting the environment does not just mean providing badger runways under new motorways; it means bringing relief to people such as the villagers of Audlem.
As I was born on the A41 in Newport and I used to sell daffodils on the stones of Market Drayton, I know that part of the world fairly well. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that when I do not immediately accept every invitation to visit every town and village in the country, that is purely because of shortage of time. I spend about four days a week out of London, as well as trying to be present in the House to answer important debates such as this one, and if every one of the 650 constituencies wanted me to see one of its road problems each year, I would have to try to fit in two constituencies a day, including Saturdays and Sundays. No Under-Secretary of State for Transport could do that. If there is an opportunity in the future, I shall accept the hon. Lady's invitation, which was repeated by the county secretary in a letter which I received recently.
As for the problems, if the issue is that there should be a bypass, the hon. Lady has said that this is a matter for the county council. Nobody claims that the county council's job is easy, but there is a hierarchy of responsibilities. I dispute the suggestion that all the money that has been allocated for roads has been spent on motorways. Many bypasses have been added to the national programme, and the transport supplementary grant system has enabled a large number of county highway authorities to add bypasses and relief roads to their programmes.
If I am unable to go myself, I shall encourage Department of Transport officials to have discussions with the county about what might be done for the village. I am not promising an instant solution, but national and local government should work together to try to solve an admitted problem.
To take the village off the primary route network is not necessarily the answer, but I do not think that many letters have been received from neighbouring county councils to the south or from the town to the north, which I suspect is also in the hon. Lady's constituency, saying, "Please send the heavy traffic away from the A525 on to other roads." Lorry and car traffic, especially if it is local in its destination or origin, and also bicyclists and pedestrians take a straight line, wherever they can, and the A525 is a straight line.
The hon. Lady spelt out the fact that relief, where it can be achieved, is the cornerstone of our roads policy. I think that that view is shared by the three county councils in England and the county council in Wales which share the responsibility for the road on its 50 km journey from Wrexham to Newcastle-under-Lyme. The road is of more than local importance, because it is part of the primary route network, and it might help the House if I said a word about it.
The non-motorway roads—both trunk roads, which are looked after by the national Government and principal


roads, which are looked after by the county highway authorities—offer the best route for longer distance journeys between places of traffic importance where motorways are not available. They are recognised by people on the roads by the green-backed signs. The primary route network was first defined 20 years ago and is made up of 18,000 km of route, divided between the trunk roads and the local authority roads, like the A525. Therefore, the network is jointly owned, but it is defined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the local highway authorities. A major review was completed recently. Any casual glance at the map would confirm that no motorway is available for east-west journeys from Stoke towards Whitchurch and Wrexham. There are places of traffic importance on this access. Therefore, there is case for a primary route link. The A525 is the shortest route for journeys between many centres of population.
Audlem, a village of about 2,000 people, sits astride the A525 in an east-west direction and the A529 in a north-south direction. These two roads cross in the village and run together for a short distance. The A525 is poorly aligned and passes through the very narrow and tortuous main street. Any vehicles create severe problems for pedestrians and also environmental intrusion. There is a 30 mph speed limit in the village.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Which is completely ignored, for no good reason.

Mr. Bottomley: Overall, traffic numbers on this part of the A525 are not high—about 2,000 vehicles a day, but there is a high proportion—about 15 per cent.—of heavy vehicles, which convert to about 300 heavy goods vehicles a day. Our national records show that there were seven injury accidents between 1981 and 1985 at Audlem on the A525. Two involved serious injuries but, thankfully, no fatalities. I know that it is always dangerous to say that because we never know what will happen next week. I see the hon. Lady touching wood on the seat beside her.
Before dealing with the removal of the A525 from the primary route network I should remind the House of what the hon. Lady said about Cheshire county council trying over many years to find a solution to the problem. The county had thought about a relief road to bypass the centre of the village, but there were objections from local people because that would have entailed the demolition of properties and created environmental problems. In other words, there is not a cost-free solution.
The main suggestion this evening is the removal of the A525 from the primary route network. That suggestion was carefully considered during the recent review and was strongly opposed by the neighbouring county councils of Staffordshire and Shropshire and by the Crewe and Nantwich borough council and Nantwich town council.
Why was there opposition to the removal of Audlem from the primary route network, or the removal from it of the A525? Traffic would otherwise be supposed to follow one of two alternative routes. That would be north of the A525, using the A51/52 into Nantwich and then the A530 towards the A525 and Whitchurch, or the A534 towards Wrexham; or, alternatively, south of the A525, using the A53 to Market Drayton and the A41 towards Whitchurch.
Each of these alternatives passes through other towns and villages and the transfer of additional traffic from the

A525 would exacerbate problems in those areas. In simple terms, Audlem's gain would be someone else's loss. The practical result would be the disappearance of the green signs, which would be replaced by local white-backed signs. I do not want to overstate the efficacy of signing because drivers will follow signed routes only if it is not evident that there is another shorter or faster route for their journey. Regular travellers, including heavy goods vehicle drivers, who, with their employers, are interested in time saving if not fuel saving, soon establish the optimum route. Many journeys that are now made on the A525 would be considerably lengthened if traffic diverted to the northern or southern options. I am not talking of "considerable" in terms of an additional 10 or 20 miles, but "considerable" in terms of what drivers would do. That suggests that the traffic reduction in Audlem might prove to be marginal.
On present information, we believe that on balance the A525 should stay on the primary route network, but the position will be kept under review. I do not need to give the reasons for this, because the hon. Lady has given them clearly. The reason for the recent general review was a recognition that more than 20 years of motorway building and improvements to all-purpose roads, plus traffic increases and population changes, made it necessary to bring the primary route network up to date. Changes in coming years may require and justify further revision. as for the A525, we shall need to be satisfied that the benefits for Audlem outweigh the disadvantages that have been identified by opponents.
I am not saying that we want to see a situation that would bring no disadvantages to anyone else. We want merely to see the balance of the advantages and disadvantages changed. It may be that the county council feels that it has exhausted all possible options for a relief road or bypass, or other forms of improvement, without finding an acceptable answer, and it is possible that a fresh look might produce dividends. I offer the assistance of the Department, especially the north-west regional office, if the county council feels that this would be useful. It is important that I do not give the impression that the Government are trying to take over the responsibility for the road, but I think that I can offer the hand of open help if the county council would like that?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is there any money?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady asks whether there is any money, and I cannot give her a categorical answer. The TSG system provides central Government support, which is currently 50 per cent. of estimated expenditure, to local authorities for spending on roads which serve more than a purely local function. This includes schemes on the primary route network. It includes bypasses, which relieve communities or shopping centres from the effects of heavy through traffic. It is also guided towards other important roads carrying heavy long-distance or through traffic. A bypass of Audlem should stand up well against those criteria. I cannot tell the county council in what order it should put its priorities. The most productive meeting is likely to be the one between the county council and departmental officials. I strongly advocate that approach.
We recognise the problem. There are substantial doubts about whether removal from the primary route network would be of much help. The answer may lie in


improvements. The hon. Lady anticipated my final words, which are to re-emphasise that this is a matter for Cheshire. I hope that our debate will help. I assure the hon. Lady that, looking at the country as a whole, I am determined to go on trying to bring the kind of relief that Audlem seeks, without nationalising the whole road network. There are often times when roads under local

county highway authority control are improved more rapidly than they would be if they were under my control. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.